METHODIOS I PATRIARCH O F C O N S T A N T I N O P L E

Churchman, Politician and Confessor for the Faith

Submitted by

George P. Bithos B S DDS

University of Durham

Department of Theology

A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

Orthodox Theology and Byzantine History

2001
The copyright of this thesis rests with
the author. No quotation from it should
be published in any form, including'
Electronic and the Internet, without the
author's prior written consent All
information derived from this thesis
must be acknowledged appropriately. Professor Andrew Louth
Chair and Supervisor

2)
Z 2 MAR 2002
 Abstract

George P. Bithos B S DDS

University of Durham
Department of Theology
Ph.D. Orthodox Theology and Byzantine History
2001

Methodios I Patriarch of Constantinople

Churchman, Politician, and Confessor for the Faith

The chapter concerning the life and times of Methodios, Patriarch of

Constantinople, begins with a summary of the history of the iconoclastic
controversy. This provides the background for a review of Methodios' vita.
A native of Syracuse in Sicily, he became a central figure in the victory of
the iconodules over the forces of iconoclasm. Methodios was the Patriarch
of Constantinople (843 - 847).

The Triumph of Orthodoxy, over which Methodios presided, commemorated

the victory of icon supporters. The Sunday of Orthodoxy services are
examined and the Synodicon's content is analysed.

The third chapter discusses the consequences of the restoration of images.

This period of stabilisation and strengthening of the Church was,
nonetheless, fraught with turmoil and controversy. The re-integration of the
former iconoclasts and a schism from the Studite monks were two serious
challenges the Patriarch faced during this time.

The formation of Methodios' ecclesiology, his concept of the Church,

including his sense of place in and responsibility for the Tradition of the
Church were significant in his thinking. The synergy of Paradosis and
Parakatatheki is explored and it will be shown that Methodios considered
himself accountable to God for his ecclesial trust.

His literary works are catalogued and analysed. Some previously

unpublished compositions are discussed. The categories of hagiographic,
poetic and liturgical compositions are emphasised. This is undertaken to
reveal Methodios, both the dedicated iconodule but more importantly, the
man. Finally, conclusions and thoughts concerning the legacy of Patriarch
Methodios within Orthodoxy and history are offered.
I
V

Figure 1: - Icon of the SUNDAY of ORTHODOXY (used by permission of British Library)

iii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Figures vi

Declaration and Copyright Statement vii

Acknowledgements viii

Dedication ix

In Memoriam x

Introduction 1

1 Life and Times

Sources 7
Background: The Genesis
of Iconoclasm 8
Onset of Christian Iconoclasm 10
Iconoclasm Phase One 16
Leo V and the Re-appearance
of Iconoclasm 47
Methodios - The Life 64
Methodios - The Confessor 72

2 Triumph of Orthodoxy 81
Synod of Election and the First
Sunday of Orthodoxy 91
The Synodicon 100
The Canon of the Sunday
of Orthodoxy 132

3 The Consequences of the Restoration of Icons

After the Triumph 157
A Storm of Criticism 174
Methodios and the Studites 176

4 The Development and Influences of Methodian Ecclesiology

Ecclesiology Introduced 204
Patriarch Germanos 207
Tarasios and Nicaea II 215
Nikephoros and Theodore the
Studite face Iconoclasm II 224
Synergy of Paradosis and Parakatatheki 245

iv
5 Literary Harvest
Introduction 253
Polemic Writings 258
Canonical Works 261
Hagiographical Writing 263
The Vitae 290
Poems and Liturgical Writings 323

6 Conclusions and The Methodian Legacy 357

Epilogue 362

Appendix I 363

Appendix II - List of Figures 365

List of Patriarchs, Popes and Emperors 366

Bibliography 368

v
 List of figures

Figure 1: - The Icon of the First Sunday of Orthodoxy iii

Figure 2: - Sts. Nikephoros and Theodore Reconciled

Emperor Theophilos and Iconoclasts 56
Figure 3: - John the Grammarian Whitewashing Icon
of Christ 61
Figure 4: - Map of Constantinople 71
Figure 5: - St. Sophia Cathedral 80
Figure 6: - Map of Balkan Peninsula 90
Figure 7: - Map of Asia Minor 356
Figure 8: - Methodios the Confessor, Patriarch of Constantinople 361

vi
 Declaration

I confirm that no part of the material offered has previously been submitted by
for a degree in this or in any other University.

Signed: P4/^.

Date: X_ & \
 D E C L A R A T I O N AND C O P Y R I G H T S T A T E M E N T

The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. No quotation from it

should be published without his prior written consent and information

derived from it should be acknowledged.

vii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Many individuals have assisted the production of this thesis. The help and
encouragement I received are greatly appreciated and are here
acknowledged. I cannot thank all personally but do wish to recognise some
at this time. Rev. Dr. George Dragas of Hellenic College/Holy Cross began
my voyage of discovery on St. Methodios. The following people all aided in
the research and the gathering of materials: Dr. Alexander Alexakis, Ms.
Katerina Andriopoulou, Ria Bithos, Dr. Annmarie Weyl Carr, Moschos
Goutsioudis, Hieromonachos Gregor, Toula Maniaki, George and Anastasia
Metallidis, loanni Panagiotopoulos, Andrew Pantos, Mariana Stamatelatos,
Nicholas Toutos, and Rev. Dr. Gregory Woolfenden. My special thanks go
to His Eminence Archbishop Demetrios of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese
of America for his support and prayers.

A few people have been at my side and inspired me throughout this entire
process. I offer my thanks to Dr. Carol Harrison for her help and
encouragement. Most especially to my supervisor and friend, Professor
Andrew Louth my heartfelt thanks and gratitude for his insight, guidance
and assistance.

Lastly and most importantly, to my family, Presbytera Penny, Olga, Betty,

Peter, Nicole and Katina, this effort would not have been possible without
their love, support and caring. Thank you.

viii
 DEDICATION

In the service of betrothal in the Orthodox Church the Church prays:

That He send down upon them love perfect and

peaceful, and give them His protection;
Let us pray to the Lord.

To my wife,

Ria

You have been my strength, my cheer and my heart. This effort is as much

yours as it is mine.

May God grant us His blessings always.

I dedicate this and all my works to you.

ix
 IN MEMORIAM

This work is written in loving memory of my father

+ Fr. Peter George Bithos (1919 - 1978)

my first and most enduring teacher in the faith.

As thou did appoint him to be a minister of thy Church on earth,

so also do thou make him the same at thy heavenly altar, O Lord.

x
 Introduction

Methodios I, a scholar, a monastic, a confessor for the faith and Patriarch of

Constantinople (843-847) is a figure wrapped in the clouds of time.

Iconoclasm, the eighth and ninth century crisis that dominated Byzantium,

affected not only the history of the Eastern Empire, but also that of the

entire Christian Church.

It is the intent of this study not only to analyse Methodios a s a person in

history, but also as a Church leader with true depth of conviction. It will be

demonstrated that he had a sense of his place within the Tradition of the

Church and a fierce determination to end the threat of the heresy of

iconoclasm.

Methodios will be examined in the light of the words of his contemporaries,

his own works, which include hagiographic compositions, historical

correspondences, liturgical and polemic writings and the historic record.

The complex relationships and resultant power struggles between the

various participants in the resolution of the iconoclastic controversy will

feature significantly in the discussion.

Narrowing the research on the significance of the resolution of the struggle

can yield historic insight to the present practices and theology of the

Orthodox Church. In addition, the divergence of understanding between

Western and Eastern branches of Christianity, which was a by-product of

iconoclasm, will be assessed. Three conclusions will be presented in this

work. First, who had a legitimate claim to the mantle of victory over

iconoclasm? Secondly, what were the principles and motives that directed

the actions of Methodios? Lastly, what was the legacy and conclusions

drawn from the life of Patriarch Methodios I of Constantinople?

Above, the phrase "wrapped in the clouds of time" is used to describe

Patriarch Methodios I of Constantinople. Is this an accurate

characterisation? The answer is both yes and no, simultaneously. The

Orthodox Church remembers him on the Feast day of his falling asleep in

th
the Lord, the 14 of June. The Church celebrates him as a saint and lauds

him with these words from the Vespers of his Feast:

Today, the Church of God is clothed for a feast and

joyously cries aloud, 'My beauty shines more
brightly than any city: behold the treasure of
hierarchs, the glorious Methodios arrives in
heaven!' Come feast-lovers! All you orthodox
Christians gather together! Let us draw near
healing in abundance from the holy relics, and let
us entreat Christ our God to deliver the world from
1
all heresy!

1
MHNAIA - Liturgical Books of the Months, (1995) (Sophia P r e s s ) , Newton Centre, MA, p. 47,
Troparion of the Stichon at Vespers authored by Photios, Patriarch of Constantinople, s e e T E r A E ,
r. (ed.) (n.d.) Liturgical Books of the Months (MHNAIA TOYXPONOY) (MIX. LAAIBEIIOY A. E.),
Athens, p. 68.

2
Is this a bit of a panegyric hyperbole or a sentiment worth considering in

more detail? What is discernable from the above hymn is that the Church

rejoices that its universal orthodoxy has been delivered from heresy

through the life of Methodios. In addition to this and other festal hymns of

the day, Methodios is remembered by the many liturgical texts, which he

either authored or that were compiled under his supervision. Ironically, the

Church venerates him in a relatively few icons, albeit he played such a

pivotal role in the resolution of the iconoclastic crisis. It can be said,

without risk of contradiction, that the mist of history still shrouds Methodios.

What is the starting point for a voyage of discovery to better understand the

life and ordeals of an ecclesiastical figure of so long ago? Fr. Georges

Florovsky indicates the nature of the task ahead with these words.

The past can only be 'reconstructed.' Is it a

possible task? And how is it possible? Actually,
no historian starts with the past. His starting point
is always in the present, to which he belongs
himself. He looks back. His starting point is his
'sources,' the primary sources. Out of them, and
on their authority, he proceeds to the 'recovery' of
the past. His procedure depends on the nature
2
and character of his information, of his s o u r c e s .

It must be conceded that little direct primary material remains extant from

the iconoclastic perspective of the icon debate. This was a dispute

involving a serious Christian heresy in the eyes of the victors. For this

2
Florovsky, G . (1974) Christianity and Culture, The Collected Works of Fr. Georges Florovsky
(Norland Publishing Co.), Belmont, MA, p. 36.

3
reason, much iconoclastic literature is not available. This is not difficult to

comprehend when the ninth canon of the Seventh Ecumenical Council,

Nicaea II is read.

It states:

That none of the books containing the heresy of

the traducers of the Christians are to be hid. - All
the childish devices and mad ravings which have
been falsely written against the venerable images,
must be delivered to the Episcopium of
Constantinople that they may be locked away with
other heretical books...

The penalties for the violation of this canon were deposition for a clergyman

3
or being anathematised for a monk or layperson. Therefore, the

viewpoints of the opponents to the use of images must be "reconstructed",

to echo the words of Fr. Florovsky. Their state of mind must be "recovered"

from the arguments of the iconodules. An additional obstacle to a detailed

historical analysis of this cleric is the short term, during which Methodios

occupied the patriarchal throne, AD 843 through 847. Despite the brief

duration, these four years were extremely contentious and dramatic;

therefore, many of the sources reflect the biases and preconceived

4
judgements of the antagonists. Even though the surviving writings of this

period are fragmentary, Methodios was a central contributor to the

resolution of the icon crisis and to the ensuing quest for stability within the

3
Percival, H. R. (ed.) (1956) A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the
Christian Church The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church (Eerdmans Publishing),
Oxford/New York/Grand Rapids, vol. 14, p. 561.
4
T h e s e premises will be explored in detail in the body of the dissertation.

4
Church. Consequently, the purpose of this study is to separate, as much as

possible, truth from rhetoric and to reveal more about this ninth-century

churchman's character and motives.

The observance of the Sunday of Orthodoxy, which is commemorated on

the first Sunday of Great Lent for the Orthodox Churches world-wide, is an

excellent example of the ambiguous status of Patriarch Methodios. During

this festive proclamation of the faith, in which he played such a decisive

role, he remains only a figure on an icon. For the most part, he is

unrecognised by the community of believers that he sustained and which is

one of his legacies. Many may well be familiar with his name, but beyond

this, there is little in-depth comprehension of the significant contribution he

made to end iconoclasm. How different would Orthodoxy be today if the

heralds of the iconodulic theology, Sts. John of Damascus, Theodore the

Studite, the Patriarch Saints Germanos, Tarasios, Nikephoros and

Methodios had bowed to imperial pressure and had not fought for their

faith? How would the artistic legacy of Byzantium to the rest of the world

have been altered? What theological doctrines would all Christian

teachings contain if these pillars of Orthodoxy had not prevailed? These

are extremely intriguing questions. Of course, some of these questions

may never be answered. What can be examined are the actual events and

the complex personalities involved so that a brighter light might shine on

the era. The interplay of the actions, the reaction of the players in the

drama, their motivations and the judgement of history are all issues, which

can be investigated, analysed and evaluated in the light of modern

scholarship.

5
The topics of iconoclasm, its history and the impact of Patriarch Methodios

will be approached much like eating an artichoke. Starting with the outer

leaves, history will be stripped away in layers, using sources and insights

from the Patriarch's contemporaries and subsequent historians alike. The

resultant "heart of the matter" should be a much deeper appreciation of the

role and contribution of Patriarch Methodios and his fellow iconodules. If

we approach Methodios in this manner, he will emerge from the clouds. By

searching his heart through his own writings, decisions and

correspondences, the man will be revealed. A man with principles,

convictions, courage and a sense of his own place in the Tradition of the

Church will become known. What will become clearer is the recognition of

the positive outcome of his life, as well as his legacy in the Orthodox faith of

today.

6
 Chapter One

METHODIOS: LIFE AND TIMES

Sources

What do we know about Patriarch Methodios and where do we begin our

exploration of his life? There are several primary bases for the study of the

1
life of Patriarch Methodios. First, there is his Vita, then other

2
contemporary vitae, the panegyric witness and the historical chronicles of

the times. There is, of course, a limitation in exploring the hagiographical

literature of this period that must be kept in mind throughout this study; that

is the caveat we spoke of in the introduction. With the defeat of

iconoclasm, there was a conscious effort by the victorious iconodules to

remodel the historical record to reflect the orthodox perspective and to

enhance the standing of the heroes of their cause. It is known from

Methodios' vita that the Saint was bom in Syracusa of Sicily. The exact

date of his birth is unknown, but we know he was well educated and

travelled to Constantinople as a young man. There, he embraced

monasticism and became part of the patriarchal retinue of Patriarch

Nikephoros. With the onset of the second phase of iconoclasm, he was

sent to Rome perhaps as a patriarchal emissary. He returned to the Queen

City in the early part of the 820's, only to be imprisoned and suffer a s a

1
"Sanctus Methodius • Constantinopolitanus patriarcha" (1857-1866) in Patrologiae cursus
completes: Series graeca, tomos. c, ed. J . - P. Migne, Paris, cols. 1231-1326, cols. 1 2 4 4 - 1272.
2
These will be cited a s they contribute to the thesis.

7
Confessor for the Faith. In 843, he helped the restoration of icons and

became Patriarch. After four years in office, he fell asleep in the Lord.

Before continuing with the vita account of Methodios' life, perhaps it would

be helpful to briefly review the events in the history of the iconoclastic

controversy. This conflict not only shaped the age but also helped to

fashion Methodios' character and his way of thinking. To understand

Methodios, as a man of his time and a participant in a great drama, an

3
understanding of the conflict is essential.

Background: The Genesis of Iconoclasm

Thou shall not make to thyself an idol, nor likeness

of anything, whatever things are in the heaven
above and whatever are in the earth beneath, and
whatever are in the waters under the earth. Thou
shalt not bow down to them, nor serve them; for I
4
am the Lord thy God, a jealous G o d .

Professor Baynes, following the tradition of German scholars from the end

of the nineteenth century asserts that the nascent Christian Church

inherited its antipathy for artistic depiction from two sources, the Old

Testament prohibition of idols and from its identification of religious art with

3
Bryer, A. and Herrin, J . (eds.) (1975) Iconoclasm - Papers given at the Ninth Spring Symposium
of Byzantine Studies (University of Birmingham Press), Birmingham, UK. (henceforth Iconoclasm)
s e e Cyril Mango "An Historical Introduction" pp. 1 - 6 same vol.
4
Exodus 20, 4 - 5 (LXX): Oi3 Troitja£i<; CTEOUKV efSwAov, O I ) 8 E n a v T d g 6\io(<a\ia "oaa E"V Ttji
oupdvtj "avw, K a i "oaa £v T(J yfi Kdrrw, m i "oaa tv -roTq "uSaoiv U T I O K C I T W yfjg. Ou
-
npoaKuvr|a£i<; auToTq, odSe \xr\ AaTptuoeiQ aiiToTq ydp Kiipioq 6 ©edg oou, Qioq

8
the pagan world. Baynes explains his opinions in this manner. He states

that the second commandment prohibition is quite understandable in view

of the fact that the early Christians lived in a Jewish milieu. However, the

impact of the pagan culture on the thinking of the early Church is many

times overlooked.

The fear of idolatry was, I believe, a far more

potent factor in the life of the early Christian
community than we sometimes realize. But if it
was against this idolatrous Mediterranean
civilization that the Christian protested, he was still
so much a part of that civilization that he fought his
battle with the weapons which had been forged by
the men of that Mediterranean civilization. The
Christian apologetic against idolatry was simply
5
borrowed from pagan thinkers.

This point of view, supported by later researchers of this century such as

6 7
Ernst Kitzinger and L. W. Barnard, is strongly challenged by Sister Mary

Charles Murray in her study, "Art and the Early Church" in The Journal of

Theological Studies. Sr. Murray's arguments regarding the above subject

and other pertinent ones will be commented upon in subsequent

discussions.

5
Baynes, N. H. (1959) "Idolatry and the Early Church" in Byzantine Studies and Other Essays
(University of London The Athlone Press), London, pp. 116 - 143, p. 125.
6
Kitzinger, E . (1954) "The Cult of Images in the Age before Iconoclasm", DOP, vol. 8, pp. 83 -
150.
7
Barnard, L. W. (1974) The Graeco-Roman and Oriental Background of the Iconoclastic
Controversy, Byzantina Neerlandica ( E . J . Brill), Leiden, p. 85 ff.

9
 The Onset of Christian Iconoclasm

Most accounts of the early and pre-eighth century patristic citations

concerning the use of icons are scattered. They are well documented and

for the most part agreed upon by scholars. Some of the historic and

traditional supports for the use of icons are the "images made without

8
hands", which include the "Veil of Veronica" and the Image of Christ's face

sent to King Abgar of E d e s s a on a cloth. One of the other early legends

supporting the use of images is that St. Luke, the Evangelist, is said to have

painted an image of the Theotokos, while she was still living.

The iconographic type of the Mother of God, which

is known under the name of "Hodigitria" (f\
'OSriyiiTpia) has had a series of prototypes, which
connect it with a venerable antiquity. Byzantine
tradition traces it back to an original painting by St.
9
Luke.

On the other hand, there are a few primary early iconoclastic opinions

involving early church figures. Eusebius' letter to Constantia, sister of

Constantine the Great is an excellent example of iconoclastic sentiment

1 0
that occurred in the early fourth century. Responding quite strongly to a

request from Constantia for a "portrait of Christ," Eusebius asserted that no

8
" 'AxeipoirofTyroQ" s e e St. John of Damascus, (1980) On Images, Three Apologies Against
Those Who Attack the Divine Images, trans. D. Anderson (St. Vladimir's Seminary Press),
Crestwood, NY, p. 35.
9
Ouspensky, L. and Lossky, V. (1989) The Meaning of Icons, Revised Edition, trans. G . E . H .
Palmer and E . Kadloubovsky (St. Vladimir's Seminary), Crestwood, NY, p. 80.
1 0
Hussey, J . M. (1990) The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire, (Clarendon Press),
Oxford, UK., pp. 32 - 33 and Gero, S . (1981) "The True Image of Christ: Eusebius' Letter to
Constantia Reconsidered", Journal of Theological Studies n.s., vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 460 - 470.

10
physical image could contain the divine essence. This rather strong

rebuke, especially when sent to the Emperor's sister, could have been quite

influential. The difficulty was that Eusebius was later considered to have

Arian views so the value of his criticism was considerably minimised by his

11
theological opinions. Today some scholars doubt the authenticity of this

work.

The thoughts and writings of Epiphanios, Bishop of Salamis in Cyprus,

during the late fourth century, were used as proofs by both iconoclasts and

upholders of orthodoxy. Epiphanios had spotless credentials as a father of

the Church, unlike Eusebius. The iconoclastic side cited his Epistle to John

1 2
of Jerusalem protesting the use of images, while the iconodules accused

the iconoclasts of using "forgeries" to appropriate this father as a patristic

1 3
source. The incident that the letter describes is Epiphanios coming upon

a church with an embroidered curtain. Epiphanios tore down the curtain,

1 4
thus "proving" his icon phobia in the interpretation of the iconoclasts.

This scenario, described in detail by Murray, has been the source of dispute

concerning Epiphanios' attitudes since the ninth century. Even though, at

first thought not to be authentic, it is now thought by some to be a genuine

11
Gero, "The True Image of Christ: Eusebius' Letter to Constantia Reconsidered", p. 263.
1 2
Barnard, L. (1975) "The Theology of Images," In Iconoclasm - Papers given at the Ninth Spring
Symposium of Byzantine Studies, eds. A. Bryer and J . Herrin (Centre for Byzantine Studies -
University of Birmingham), Birmingham, UK, pp. 7 - 13, pp. 9 - 10.
1 3
S a h a s , D. J . (1988) Icons and Logos, Sources in Eighth Century Iconoclasm, trans. D. J .
S a h a s (University of Toronto Press), Toronto /Buffalo/ London (Toronto Medieval Texts and
Translations no. 4), pp. 1 1 6 - 1 2 1 .
1 4
Sister Charles Mary Murray (1977) "Art and the Early Church", JTS - n.s., vol. 28, pp. 303 -
345, pp. 336 ff.

11
 1 5
work of the bishop. Sister Murray concisely compares the Greek text with

the more familiar Latin translation of St. Jerome to argue that earlier

assessments of this document misinterpreted the objection of Epiphanios.

Sr. Murray cites a second letter from Epiphanios to the people of the church

concerning the torn curtain. Epiphanios replied that he would replace the

1 6
curtain, but had not yet found a suitable replacement. Additionally,

Murray builds a powerful argument by listing a number of researchers by

name and tracing how one scholar's work depended on the preceding one.

She states there has been a tendency for a researcher to accept the

premises of earlier scholars, without comparing the two document

1 7
traditions. Therefore, Murray concludes the result has been a

misinterpretation of the data. Her conclusions are worth reflecting upon at

this juncture.

In conclusion, therefore, if the foregoing analysis of

the literary evidence is correct, it seems a
reasonable assessment of the case to say that
there is very little indication indeed that the Fathers
of the early Church were in any way opposed to
art. Since then, according to the traditional view
taken of the literature so many difficulties and
inconsistencies have to be explained away, to say
nothing of explaining away the art itself, it seems
far simpler and for more in accord with what the
Fathers actually wrote, to conclude that there

1 5
Ostrogorsky and Holl take opposite sides of this question, s e e Ibid, footnote no. 4.
1 6
Ibid., p. 338.
1 7
Ibid., pp. 338 ff. T h e s e pages summarise the scholarly tradition concerning this letter. The
painstaking research and text comparisons point to the conclusions that Sr. Murray has reached.

12
 never was a dichotomy between the art and the
literature of the early Church; and an apparently
insoluble problem proves never to have been a
problem at all. It does seem impossible to believe,
nor does there now seem to be any evidence for
doing so, that all the wealth of art which survives
was produced in the face of the Church
18
authorities.

Patristic sources formed the backbone of the iconodules justification for

images. Pelikan explains the method of supporters of icons in this way:

Yet the friends of the icons could not let the

iconoclasts lay claim to the tradition; not if
"orthodoxy" was to mean support of the icons. For
"orthodoxy" meant above all loyalty to the tradition
of the fathers. The images in the church could not
be "a recent invention," but had to have the
authority of Christian antiquity, patristic and even
apostolic, behind them... It was characteristic of
every heresy, and especially of the iconoclastic
heresy, that it sought to dissociate itself from the
heresies that had preceded it and that it laid claim
to the apostolic and patristic doctrines and to the
1 9
authority of the councils.

The fathers cited include St. Athanasios the Great (295 - 373 AD), St. Basil

of Caesarea (330 - 379 AD), St. Gregory of Nyssa (330 - 395 AD). An

1 8
Ibid., p. 342.
1 9
Pelikan, J . (1977) The Christian Tradition - in 3 volumes / vol.2 - A History of the Development
of Doctrine (University of Chicago Press), Chicago/London, p.98.

13
excellent summary of these sources and notations can be found in A.

Giakalis' book Images of the Divine - Theology of Icons at the Seventh

20
Ecumenical Council.

The Dionysian theology of hierarchy, image and prototype also contributed

2 1
to the iconodules' armamentaria. St. Dionysios the Areopagite speaks of

God and His creation in his treatise The Divine Names,

The theologians say that the transcendent God is

inherently similar to no other being, but that he also
bestows a similarity to himself on all those who are
returning to him in imitation as far as possible, of
what is beyond all definition and understanding. It
is the power of the divine similarity, which returns
all created things toward their Cause, and these
things must be reckoned to be similar to God by
22
reason of the divine image and l i k e n e s s .

This reasoning of image and likeness, similarity and imitation was added to

by the Biblical concept that Christ is the Image of the Father.

He is the image of the invisible God, the first- born

23
of all creation.

Giakalis, A. (1994) Images of the Divine The Theology of Icons at the Seventh Ecumenical
Council ( E . J . Brill), Leiden/New York/Koln. (Studies in the History of Christian Thought) pp. 34-42.
Special note should be made of Giakalis' excellent footnoting and outline of source material. This
is too lengthy to reproduce here.
2 1
Meyendorff, J . (1987) Christ in Eastern Christian Though (Le Christ dans la thGologie
byzantine), 2nd Edition (St. Vladimir's Seminary Press), Crestwood, NY, pp. 176 - 1 7 7 .
2 2
Pseudo - Dionysius the Areopagite (1987) Pseudo - Dionysius - The Complete Works, trans. C .
Luibheid (The Paulist Press), New York/Mahwah (The C l a s s i c s of Western Spirituality), p. 117 = P G
vol. 3, col. 913d.

14
Foundational concepts, such as these, complemented by Incarnational

Christology were to become central in the iconodules' thinking. During the

centuries immediately before iconoclasm, some of the influential patristic

defenders of icons were Severianos, Bishop of Gabala, Leontios, Bishop of

Neapolis in Cyprus and Stephen, Bishop of Bostra. Each of these

apologists contributed to the latter iconophilic points of view. Stephen's

primary contributions were an elaboration of the theme concerning man

being made in the image and likeness of God, more specifically image-not-

idol. G . B. Ladner, quoting from an Ambrosiana Manuscript, cites

Stephen's distinctions as follows,

An image (EIKWV) is one thing, and idol (dya^jia or

£<38iov) is another. Then he [Stephen] quotes
Genesis 1: 26, and continues: 'Now is it idolatry
and impiety that man is an image of God? Far
from it. If Adam were an image of demons, he
would be abject and unacceptable; but because is
an image of God, he is honorable and
acceptable... And what is the honor rendered to
the image if not just honor, as also we sinners do
reverence (TTPOCTKUVOOHEV) one another with honor
2 4
and love'.

This was among the building blocks of the iconophiles' arguments, as we

shall see shortly. Leontios, Bishop of Neapolis, writing in the seventh

century, defends the Christian use of images against the charge of idol

2 4
Stephen of Bostra, s e e Ladner, G . B. (1953) "The Concept of Image in the Greek Fathers and
the Byzantine Iconoclastic Controversy", OOP, vol. 7, pp.1 - 34, p. 15, notes 98,104 and 106. For
clarification on Stephen, s e e p. 14.

15
worship found in the Old Testament prohibition. His sermons, The Defence

of Christians against the Jews, and on Icons of the Saints become

influential patristic source material for later writers. He is quoted in the

writings of St. John of Damascus, St. Theodore Studite and the

proceedings of Nicaea II. Leontios asserts that the tradition of image

making is, in fact, a Jewish custom "and not our own" [a Christian

25
custom].

Iconoclasm Phase One

Rarely has a religious conflict had such a great influence on the course of

history. The controversy over images and their use in the Eastern Church

raged from 726 to 843. It defined an age and affected the future of Church

relations in both east and west for centuries to come. The problem for the

serious student of this period can be summed up in one phrase - "to the

victors belong the spoils." Very little primary source material is extant that

is not iconodulic in nature. The positions and arguments of the opponents

of images, the iconoclasts, have been lost, deliberately destroyed or altered

by the eventual victors. The iconoclastic positions are available only via the

writings of iconodules who sought to refute and invalidate the viewpoints of

their opponents. Therefore, the complete picture and background

Mansi, vol 13, cols. 44 a - 53 c.

16
surrounding these events must be pieced together by evidence from various
2 6
sources.

The issues and the core arguments are best appreciated when examined in

two phases. Phase one has been delineated roughly from the ascendancy

of Leo III (known as Leo the Isaurian or Syrian) in 717 through the Seventh

Ecumenical Council, Nicaea II, in 787. After a brief hiatus, iconoclasm

reappeared. Phase two is accepted to have begun early in the reign of Leo

V the Armenian, (813 -820) and continued until 11 March 843. Probably

the real end-date should coincide with the death of the Emperor Theophilos

the previous year.

The 11 March date is that of the celebration of the first Sunday of the

Triumph of Orthodoxy and is traditionally declared as the end of the

iconoclastic era. While this overall timetable is correct, as was

demonstrated, the controversy may have had embryonic beginnings in

27
writings prior to Leo I I I , and its aftermath extended for a time beyond 843.

There is a difference of opinion on the length of the aftermath period.

Professor Mango believes this period does not truly extend into the

2 8
patriarchal era of Photios. On the other hand, Fr. Dvornik argued that

during his patriarchal years much of Photios' concern was to eliminate the

For an excellent overview of the entire Iconoclastic Controversy s e e Hussey, The Orthodox
Church in the Byzantine Empire, pp. 30 - 68; also s e e Ostrogorsky, G . (1969) History of the
Byzantine State, Revised Edition, trans. J . Hussey (Rutgers University Press), New Brunswick, NJ,
pp.147 - 152 with a view to the sources.
2 7
Barnard, "The Theology of Images," in Iconoclasm, pp. 8 - 9.
2 8
Mango, C . (1975) "Liquidation of Iconoclasm and Patriarch Photios," in Iconoclasm - Papers
given at the Ninth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies on Iconoclasm, e d s . A. Bryer and J .
Herrin (Centre for Byzantine Studies - University of Birmingham), Birmingham, UK, pp. 133 - 141, p.
135.

17
resurgence of the iconoclastic heresy. There is no doubt the aftermath of

iconoclasm dominates the patriarchal careers of both Methodios and

Ignatios but the fear of a full-scale re-emergence appears to have passed

by the time of Patriarch Photios.

The Byzantine Mind-Set in the Eighth Century:

In Byzantium there was a general perception regarding the role of Divine

Providence in the life of the empire. Today it is difficult to grasp completely

the accepted view that God had elected the Byzantine Empire to be the

direct inheritor of Israel, His chosen people. In both the people and the

emperor's views, the fortunes or misfortunes of the Empire were tied

directly to God's approval or disapproval. Fr. McGuckin very succinctly

explains this viewpoint in his article on power and images.

If the Arabs were again making ground at the

beginning of the eighth century, was not the reason
that something was radically wrong with the
Christian oecumene at large, and particular with
life in Constantinople, under whose walls the
3 0
invaders had camped

If one reads McGuckin's opinions and combines them with the political,

military and economic climate of the early eighth century in Byzantium, it is

2 9
Dvornik, F. (1953) "Patriarch Photius and Iconoclasm", OOP, vol. 7, pp. 69 ff.
3 0
McGuckin, J . A. (1993) "The Theology of Images and Legitimation of Power in Eighth Century
Byzantium", St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly, vol. 37, pp. 39 - 58, p. 42.

18
more understandable how a crisis about the images developed in the minds

of the Emperor, the army and some of the citizens.

The Protagonists Emerge

All the world's a stage. And all men and women

merely players. They all have their exits and
entrances. And one man in his time plays many
31
parts...

With Germanos Patriarch of Constantinople in his second year of office,

Leo III (the Isaurian) secured the throne in 716 - 717. He did this in an

agreement with the patriarch. This pact promised not to harm Theodosios,

3 2
the previous Emperor and to preserve the Church undisturbed. Leo was

not a sophisticated or erudite man but he was a good soldier and a shrewd

3 3
politician. We do not know when his antipathy towards images began,

but the record shows he did not start a full scale offensive against images

immediately upon taking over the empire. He waited for almost ten years to

initiate his denunciation of icons and their use. During this time, he

3 4
prepared public opinion to support his action. Some problematic texts

might be helpful at this point. According to Fr. McGuckin's analysis, Leo's

Shakespeare, Wm., As you Like It, Act II, vii, 139.

3 2
Theophanes the Confessor (1997) The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor, trans. C . Mango,
R. Scott and G . Greatrex (Clarendon Press), Oxford, p. 540.
3 3
Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State, p. 143 ff.
3 4
Mango, C . (1990) Nikephoros of Constantinople, Short History, edited trans, and commentary
by C . Mango, Washington, D.C. (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae), p. 42.

19
correspondence with Pope Gregory II contains an indication of the

emperor's attitudes.

But Leo's theocratical views on the place of

Kingship in the Christian oecumene mark a new
shift, in that they are elaborated far more explicitly
than his predecessors, and work on a directly
applied Old Testament model. Such a theocratic
tradition had within it the seeds of a messianic
policy of the centralised absorption of all hieratic
functions - the Basileus as the Royal Saviour of his
people who was prophet, priest and king all in
35
one.

Gouillard quite convincingly argues that these correspondences have been

redacted many times. It is his assertion that substantial portions of the

correspondences were worked and re-worked later in the eighth and ninth

centuries. Therefore, he does not believe that they can be considered

entirely authentic. He makes these conclusions in opposition to the earlier

findings of Caspar, Ostrogorsky and in some aspects those of Gregoire; but

3 6
his opinion is supported by Mango.

The date commonly accepted, as the start of the iconoclastic period is

around 726 AD. The beginning was associated with a violent and serious

3 5
McGuckin, "The Theology of Images and Legitimation of Power in Eighth Century Byzantium",
p. 45.
3 6
Gouillard, J . (1968) "Aux Origines de I'lconoclasme: Le Temoignage de Gregoire II", Travaux et
Memoires - Centre de Reserche D'Histoire et Civilisation Byzantines, vol. 3, pp. 243 - 307, p. 260
and conclusions pp. 306-307; also s e e Theophanes the Confessor, The Chronicle of Theophanes
Confessor, p. 558 - 559, note no. 3.

20
volcanic eruption in the area near the Aegean Island of Thera (Santorini).

To many of the citizens, this calamity was proof positive of God's wrath

descending on Byzantium. In their mind, the cause must have been the cult

associated with icons and their use. Professor Hussey relates the account

of the destruction of a mosaic icon of Christ by imperial troops. This mosaic

icon, which hung above the XahKr\ [The Bronze Gate] at the entry of the

3 7
Imperial Palace in Constantinople, became a symbol in the ensuing

conflict. The account now is thought to be legendary by Auzepy and

Hussey. They believe that this story exemplifies the type of historical

3 8
embellishment the image controversy fostered. These shifts in

viewpoints among scholars are, in my opinion, indicative of the difficulty

encountered when a clear picture of the era's events are the goal,

considering the much-doctored historical record.

Phase one of the conflict pitted the emperor and the garrison of

Constantinople against Orthodox Church leaders, led by the aged Patriarch

Germanos. Kaegi points out that in the capital, a great number of troops of

the imperial army were more than ready to follow their Emperor's lead

Mango, C . (1959) The Brazen House - A Study of the Vestibule of Constantinople,

Arkeaologisk-kunsthistoriske Meddelelser (i kommission hos Ejnar Munksgaard), Copenhagan, s e e
pp. 112 ff. Consult for complete description and pp. 170 - 1 7 4 for comment.
3 8
Hussey, The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire, p. 37. This account is s e e n in several
contemporary vitae or chronicle accounts such a s the Vita of Stephanos the Younger, Auzepy, M.-
F. (1997) La Vie dEtienne le Jeune par Etienne le Diacre, Birmingham Byzantine and Ottoman
Monographs, trans. M.-F. Auzepy (Ashgate Lmt. in the Variorum Series), Aldershot, Hampshire,
U.K., pp. 100-101. Auzepy disputes authenticity of account on p. 193 - 194; s e e notes 72 - 73.
Again, s e e Synaxarion of St. Theodosia in Talbot, A. - M. (ed.) (1998) Byzantine Defenders of
Images - Eight Saints in English Translation (Dumbarton Oaks R e s e a r c h Library and Collection),
Washington., trans. N. Constas, pp. 6 - 7, note 30. Also s e e Auzepy, M.-F. (1990) "La Destruction
de L'lcone du Christ de la C h a l c e par Leon III: propaganda ou r6alite?" Byzantion, vol. 60, pp. 445
- 492. and Frolow, A. (1963) "Le Christ de la Chalce", Byzantion, vol. 33., pp. 107- 120. This event
is also recorded in Theophanes the Confessor, The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor, pp. 559 -
561.

21
against the use of icons, even though at this early stage, this was not the
39
case in the provinces. The chronicles of Theophilos and Nikephoros both

document that in January of 730 Leo summoned a silentium against the

holy images. Germanos told Emperor Leo that he could not act without an

ecumenical council being summoned. Germanos resigned under pressure

4 0
from Leo. Then the emperor replaced him with a patriarch much more

sympathetic to his iconoclastic views, Anastasios. Anastasios was

patriarch from 730 - 754 AD. Subsequently, Patriarch Germanos died in

exile at his family home.

Many scholars now consider St. John of Damascus (c.675 - c.740) the

most prominent theological apologist for the iconodules in this phase of the

struggle. Because he was writing from Palestine, which by this time was

under Moslem control, he enjoyed freedom from Imperial interference. He

possibly wrote from the famous Monastery of St. Sabas. Although the

timing is in question, it is believed he wrote his three discourses defending

41
orthodox practices relating to icons somewhere around the year 730 AD.
4 2
Even though the actual edict of Leo is not extant, by using the writings of

icon supporters as a guide we can reconstruct the arguments of the first

phase of the controversy. The primary iconoclastic attack was based on

3 9
Kaegi Jr., W. E . (1966) "The Byzantine Armies and Iconoclasm", Byzantinoslavica, vol./part 27,
pp. 48 - 70, p. 52.
4 0
Theophanes the Confessor, The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor, p. 565, Mango
Nikephoros of Constantinople, Short History, p. 43. Both of these chroniclers document resistance
to Leo's decree among clergy and monastics.
4 1
C r o s s , F. L. and Livingstone, E. A. (eds.) (1974) Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church
(Oxford University Press), Oxford, UK, p. 748.
4 2
Anastos, M. V. (1968) "Leo Ill's Edict against the Images in the Y e a r 726-27 and the Italo-
Byzantine Relations between 726 and 730," in Polycordia. Festschrift Franz Dolger III (3rd edition),
ed. P. Wirth, Amsterdam, pp. 5 - 41, pp. 6-9.

22
the Old Testament prohibition of graven images (see Exodus 20, quoted
4 3
earlier in this chapter or Deuteronomy 6). The second area of attack was

the concept of the authority of the Emperor as "Gods chosen vessel" to

4 4
determine the Church's direction. In his treatise, On the Divine Images,

St. John responded using sources from the Fathers, the Scriptures and

Tradition. He took pains to distinguish the essential concepts that

differentiated idol worship from the use of icons. He stated.

And I tell you that Moses, knowing the sons of

Israel to be hard-hearted and seeing that they
easily fell into idolatry, forbade them to make
images. But we are not the same, for we stand
firmly on the rock of faith, filled with the light of
4 5
divine knowledge.

Resnick seeks to comment on this passage by summarising the resultant

orthodox synthesis in this manner,

Since Christ has overcome the demons, idolatry is

impossible for Christians in their sanctified use of
images, just as the true Christian can, in himself,

St. John of Damascus, On Images, Three Apologies Against Those Who Attack the Divine
Images, pp. 1 6 - 1 7 .
4 4
Gero, S . (1973) Byzantine Iconoclasm during the Reign of Leo III • with particular attention to
the Oriental Source (Secretariat du Corpus S C O ) , Louvain, (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum
Orientalium.vol. 346, Subsidia tomus 41), pp. 57 - 58 s e e , notes 33 and 34.
4 5
St. John of Damascus, On Images, Three Apologies Against Those Who Attack the Divine
Images, p. 65.

23
 only be an image of God and not the devil. Since
the incarnation has restored the image of God in
man, it becomes possible for the first time to
venerate in the images of the saints, for example,
the image of God. It is just this possibility, which
4 6
the pagans and Jews did not enjoy.

Key terms to the understanding of the orthodox position, in regard to icons,

are AcrrpEia and npoaKuvriaic;. Aon-pei'a is absolute worship or adoration,

which is reserved for the Godhead alone. npoaKuvriaiq is relative

veneration, as in bowing down in respect, John of Damascus illustrated this

distinction by using Old Testament examples,

Fear not; have no anxiety; discern between the

different kinds of worship. Abraham bowed to the
sons of Hamor, men who had neither faith nor
knowledge of God, when he bought the double
4 7
cave intended to be his tomb. Jacob bowed to
the ground before Esau, his brother, and also
4 8
before the tip of his son Joseph's staff. He
bowed down, but he did not adore [emphasis
mine], Joshua, the son of Nun, and Daniel bowed

4 6
Resnick, I. M. (1985) "Idols and Images: Early definitions and controversies", Sobornost, eds.
S . Hackel et al., London, vol. 7, pp. 35 - 49, p. 41.
4 7
G e n . 23, 7 - 19 (LXX) and Acts 7, 16 (Stephen's witness).
4 8
G e n . 33, 3 and G e n . 47, 31 (LXX).

24
 in veneration before an angel of God, but they
did not adore him. For adoration is one thing, and
that which is offered in order to honour something
5 0
of great excellence is another.

These nuances are integrated with the other pivotal points of St. John's

writings. The assertion was made that with the coming of Christ a crucial

change occurred in the fundamental relationship between God and man.

The iconodules argued that the Incarnation, Christ assuming human flesh,

enabled Him to be represented in images. During His earthly life, Christ

ate, slept, walked, talked and was touched. These actions also took place

after his Resurrection. These deeds were participated in, testified to and

handed down to the Church, within the apostolic witness. This line of

reasoning was to be elaborated by St. Theodore the Studite, as it became

more significant in the second phase of the conflict during the ninth century.
5 1
Even so, it was a vital aspect of John's defence against iconoclasm. The

sanctification of the material cosmos through its grace and ability to be

spirit bearing also is featured in St. John's opinions on the divine images.

In former times God who is without form or body,

could never be depicted. But now when God is
seen in the flesh conversing with men. I make an

4 9
J o s . 5,13 - 16 and Dan. 8, 15 - 20. (LXX).
5 0
St. John of D a m a s c u s , On Images, Three Apologies Against Those Who Attack the Divine
Images, pp. 18 - 19.
5 1
Ibid., p. 72.

25
 image of the God of whom I see. I do not worship
matter; I worship the Creator of matter who
became matter for my sake, who willed to take His
abode in matter; who worked out my salvation
through matter. Never will I cease honouring the
52
matter, which wrought out my salvation!

Yet, another area that John commented upon was the claim that the

emperor was entitled to a say in the affairs of the Church. These opinions

are presented in the following passage.

And God has appointed in the church first apostles,

second prophets, third teachers and shepherds, for
5 3
building up the body of Christ. He does not
mention emperors. And again, Obey your leaders
and submit to them; for they are keeping watch
over your souls, as men who will have to give
54
account ...Political prosperity is the business of
emperors; the condition of the Church is the
concern of shepherds and teachers. Any other
55
method is piracy.

The Third Apology of St. John elaborates on the concept of image and the

various meanings and applications within the iconoclastic debate. He

begins his examination by first listing the "questions". 1). What is an

image? 2). Why are images made? 3). How many kinds of images are

5 2
Ibid., p. 23.
53
1 Cor. 12, 28.
5 4
Heb. 13, 17.
5 5
St. John of Damascus, On Images, Three Apologies Against Those Who Attack the Divine
Images, pp. 59 - 60.

26
there? 4). What may be depicted by an image and what may not? 5). Who

first made images?

An image is a likeness, or a model, or a figure

of something, showing in itself what it depicts.
An image is not always like its prototype in
every way...All images reveal and make
56
perceptible those things which are hidden.

The key points to the argument are demonstrated. The types of images are

enumerated and explained. First, there is the natural image. The Son of

the Father is the first natural and precisely similar image of the invisible

God, for He reveals the Father in His own person. The Word is the

messenger who makes the divine nature perceptible to us, and the Spirit is

the interpreter of the Word. Secondly, there is the image of things yet to

come, such as God's foreknowledge of things yet to happen, His

changeless purpose from before all ages. The next image is man, who is

made in the image and likeness of God. Fourth, the images are of invisible

and bodiless things that give us a glimpse into the realm of the God. Fifth,
5 7
images are prefigurements or types, which allow foreshadowing of future

events. Sixth, images are made to remember past events. These may be

in the form of the written word or in the material form.

5 6
Ibid., p. 73.
5 7
Danielou, J . (1956) The Bible and the Liturgy, University of Notre Dame - Liturgical Studies,
English Edition (University of Notre Dame Press), Notre Dame, IN, s e e especially Introduction and
Chapter 1 for a detailed understanding of biblical typology - type and antitype.

27
 Either remove these images, altogether, and reject
the authority of Him who commanded them to be
made, or else accept them in the manner and with
5 8
the esteem which they deserve.

All physical things and things that are circumscribed may be depicted in

images. Those things uncircumscribed cannot be depicted.

In the beginning, He who is God begot His only

Son, His Word, the living image of Himself, the
natural and precisely similar likeness of His
eternity. He then made man in His image and
likeness...God did not unite Himself with
angelic nature, but with human nature... It is
not their place to reign or be glorified together
with those who shall sit at the Father's table;
the saints, on the other hand, are sons of God,
sons of the Kingdom, heirs of God, and fellow
heirs of Christ, for they are servants by nature,
friends by election, and sons and fellow-heirs
by divine grace, as the Lord said to the
59
Father.

The change that profoundly affected the course of events was the death of

Leo III on 18 June 741 and the succession of his son Constantine V (741-
6 0
775) to the throne. Constantine V (called Copronymus in derision)

This is a vital element in the Damascene's exposition in this phase of his argument against the
iconoclasts.
5 9
St. John of Damascus, On Images, Three Apologies Against Those Who Attack the Divine
Images, pp. 73 - 82.
6 0
Literally meaning - "dung-named": Theophanes the Confessor, The Chronicle of Theophanes
Confessor, pp. 551 - 552.

28
became emperor after a two-year civil war against his brother-in-law,

Artavasdos. During the time that Artavasdos and his supporters controlled

the capital, the iconodulic coterie once again became the dominant power

in the Queen City. Even, the incumbent Patriarch Anastasios supported

61
Artavasdos. However, this period was short lived; Constantine

vanquished this faction, re-took Constantinople, strengthened his grip on

6 2
power and dealt harshly with the rebels. The emperor reserved the most

humiliating treatment for the patriarch. He had him scourged (possibly

blinded) and paraded naked and seated backwards on a donkey in the

Hippodrome. This event fulfilled a prophetic admonition of Patriarch

6 3
Germanos. If reported accurately, this indignation demonstrated
6 4
Constantine's intent to subjugate church leadership to his will. This last
6 5
view is supported by Ostrogorsky but denied by Gero.

Constantine was a man quite different in character from his father Leo. His

rearing and sophisticated Constantinopolitan education gave him an astute

mind with an understanding of the theological premises of iconoclasm.

Because of this background, he shifted the basis of the objection to the use

of images from idol worship to opposition centred on Christological

6 1
Ibid., p. 576; Theophanes documents Patriarch Anastasios "testifying" to Constantine's
Nestorian views.
6 2
Ibid., pp. 581.
6 3
Ibid., s e e p. 564, for Germanos' prophetic utterance to Anastasios.
6 4
Ibid., p. 581 "and bending him to his will (for the man held similar beliefs a s his own), seated
him on the episcopal throne."
6 5
Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State, p. 166 for the opposing view cf. Gero, S . (1977)
Byzantine Iconoclasm During the Reign of Constantine V - with particular attention to Oriental
Sources (Secretariat du Corpus S C O ) , Louvain (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium vol.
384, Subsidia tomus 41), p. 24 note 45.

29
grounds. He combined this theological shift with a change in tactics. After

the Council of Hiereia in 754, Constantine expanded his opposition against

the monastic element within the empire, but most especially in and around

the capital. He confiscated monastic property, tortured, humiliated, publicly

66
paraded monks and nuns in mockery and even compelled them to marry.
6 7
The martyrdom of several monks, such as Andrew (Kalybites), Peter the
68
Stylite and Stephen the Hermit is documented in iconodulic literature, as
69
examples of the rare occasions when monks were put to death. There are

some theories for this repression of monasticism. Gero has characterised

his thoughts on this matter in this way:

It is not possible to prove that the attack on

monasticism was primarily a measure of self-
protection by the state against the economic and
demographic drain caused by parasitic
monasteries - rather, to my own mind, the moving
force was Constantine's own, personal hatred for
the ascetic way of life, which was diametrically
opposed to his own. One can also speculate that
he regarded the monks as a politically unreliable

Morris, R. (1995) Monks and Laymen in Byzantium 843-1118, (Cambridge University Press),
Cambridge UK., pp. 1 2 - 1 3 . Morris cites Theophanes a s documentation, p. 13, note 9.
6 7
Theophanes the Confessor, The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor, p. 595.
6 8
Ibid., pp. 6 1 0 - 6 1 1 .
6 9
Auz6py, La Vie d'Etienne le Jeune par Etienne le Diacre, pp. 169 - 1 7 2 , also Theophanes the
Confessor, The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor, p. 598.

30
 force, which - under the guise of religious
instruction and edification - fomented disloyalty
and discontent even among the emperor's close
7 0
associates.

Another tactical change the new emperor initiated to battle his adversaries,

the iconodules, was to raise the stakes of the game. He did this by calling

the Council of Hiereia. This council met from 10 February 754 to 8 August

754 at the palace of Hiereia. The final session was held in the Church of

the Virgin of Blachernai. Patriarch Constantine II, who was hand chosen by

the emperor, replaced Patriarch Anastasios who had died earlier that year.
71
This replacement did not occur until 8 August 754. Theophanes pointed

out quite clearly that this conclave was not claimant to the title "Ecumenical"

with these words, "These men by themselves decreed whatever came into

their heads, though none of the universal sees was represented, namely
72
those of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem." Nonetheless, the

emperor had prepared well for this council.

Nowhere is it mentioned that coercion was used to

extort the consent of those present; iconophile
tradition, very significantly, could not point to a
single iconophile confessor from among the

Gero, S . Byzantine Iconoclasm and The Failure of Medieval Reformation," in Image and the
Word • Confrontations in Judaism, Christianity and Islam, vol. 4, ed. J . Gutmann (Scholars Press),
Missoula, MT, pp. 49 - 62, p. 55.
7 1
Hussey, The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire, p. 39.
7 2
Theophanes the Confessor, The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor, p. 591.

31
 several hundred bishops. It is of course prima
facie most likely that the majority of the
participants, appointed during the reigns of Leo III
and Constantine V, were at least sympathizers with
7 3
the iconoclastic policy, if not active iconoclasts.

The resulting legacy of this council is that it officially elevated the

iconodules to the status of "heretics" allowing their persecution by what we

7 4
would call today "state-sponsored-terrorism". It would appear that

Constantino's motivation had a three-fold purpose. First, he personally

opposed icons on theological grounds. Monasticism, which he considered

harmful to society and to the strength of the empire, was the second target

of his displeasure. Third, his desire was to do away with the opposition to

his iconoclastic policies by eliminating its core monastic leadership and

placing secular clergy with iconoclastic sympathies in key ecclesiastical

7 5
posts. After more than thirty years on the throne, Constantine died and

his son Leo IV, the Khazar, ascended to the imperial dignity.

With the change from Constantine V's rule, the stage was set for a

transition away from his stringent policies of repression. Leo like his father

was an iconoclast but was not as rigorously anti-monastic. Exiled monks

were allowed to return to the capital and were even appointed to vacant

sees. In his Vita of Theophanes the Confessor, which will be discussed in

7 3
Gero, Byzantine Iconoclasm During the Reign of Constantine V - with particular attention to
Oriental Sources, pp. 61 - 62, esp. note 27.
7 4
Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State, pp. 173 - 174.
7 5
Theophanes the Confessor, The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor, pp. 604 - 607.

32
more detail in a later section on hagiographic literature written by Patriarch

Methodios, the churchman characterises Leo IV in this way.

...the only son of Constantine Leo, the lukewarm,

both good and very bad. Without an outlet, he was
not very sympathetic towards his mother during her
illness. He did not even honour grief in that he
garrisoned soldiers in his home. He thought he
honoured his mother, but throughout his sorrow, he
7 6
made ready the royal carriage for her coffin.

His description continues several pages later. Methodios uses these

adjectives to describe Leo. He is "sly as a fox, impious, cruel by

7 7
threatening to blinding a youth's eyes and in league with the devil". Leo
78
is also characterised as being a Nestorian. Methodios even alluded to

Constantine's Khazarian ancestry. Leo reigned only a short time, 775-780.

He died leaving his wife, Irene, regent for the young emperor Constantine

VI, age nine or ten at the time of his father's death.

th
In this year, on 8 September of the 4 indiction, the
most pious Irene together with her son Constantine
were miraculously entrusted by God with the

LatySev, B. (ed.) (1918) "Methodii, patriarchae Constantinopolitani, Vita S . Thophanis Contessoris e

codice Mosqvensi no. 159 edidit", in Memoires de l'Acad6mie des Sciences de Russie - Series viii, tomos.
Xiii: pt. iv, (Classe Hist. - Phil.), Petrograd, p p . i + 120, p. 7. " x A i a p w T c n - o i ; = lukewarm", an obvious
allusion to Rev 3, 1 4 - 1 7 . Also note the inference of an unfeeling and uncaring person.
7 7
We discover later the "youth" is Theophanes the Confessor, himself, in his younger years
before he took on the monastic habit.
7 8
LatySev, B. (ed.) (1918) "Methodii, patriarchae Constantinopolitani, Vita S . Thophanis Confessoris e
codice Mosqvensi no. 159 edidit", in MSmoires de l'Acad6mie des Sciences de Russie - Series viii, tomos.
Xiii: pt. iv (Classe Hist. - Phil.), Petrograd, pp. i + 120, p. 10.

33
 Empire so that in this matter also God might be
79
glorified though a widow and her orphaned son...

Irene, a devout lover of icons, was extremely ambitious and cautious in her

moves to restore them. Her first opportunity occurred four years after the

beginning of her regency. She secured the aid of the aged, infirmed

Patriarch Paul, who resigned repentant of his co-operation with iconoclasm.

Paul retired to monastic life. The Vita of Tarasios quotes Paul's

expressions of repentance in this way,

The indecent situation of the Church, suffering

from heresy and so pained by a long lasting evil
doctrine that she has acquired an incurable wound,
that led me to this measure, and third, my assent
to heresy, written with my <own> hands and in ink.
...I have chosen to dwell in a tomb rather than
become liable to the anathemas of the four holy
8 0
apostolic sees.

With Paul's help, Irene secured the election of new patriarch, Tarasios. A

layman, in imperial service, he possessed a brilliant mind and was an adept

tactician. After some reluctance to ascent to the patriarchal throne, he

spoke before the Senate and the Army. Then Tarasios was elevated to the
8 1
patriarchal throne to the acclaim of all present.

7 9
Theophanes the Confessor, The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor, p. 626.
8 0
Ignatios the Deacon, (1998) The Life of Patriarch Tarasios - (BHG 1698), Introduction Text
Translation and Commentary - S . Efthymiadis (Ashgate Lmt. in the Variorum Series), Hampshire,
U.K (Birmingham Byzantine and Ottoman Monographs), pp. 7 9 - 8 1 , trans, p. 174 - 175.
8 1
Ibid., pp. 85 - 9 1 , trans, pp.177 - 178.

34
In August 786, Tarasios and Irene called a synod to meet in the Church of

The Holy Apostles, in Constantinople. The event that subsequently

occurred showed the lingering strength of the iconoclasts. Imperial troops,

still espousing iconoclastic convictions, stormed the church during the

conclave.

...behold a swarm of wasps, I mean men raging

like lions, and a herd of the army and the band of
Constantine...[they cried] 'We shall not allow his
doctrines to be abolished and a speech to be
proclaimed in favour of the existence of idols. Yet,
should someone attempt to do this and should we
see a synod convoked by him rejected before our
eyes, we shall redden the earth with the blood of
8 2
priests.'

Tarasios and the empress wisely and quickly disbanded the gathering and

after almost a year of manoeuvrings, they recalled a council on 24

83
September, 787 [the Feast of St. Thekla] in Nicaea in Bithynia. The Acts

of Nicaea II, as this council is now known, contain some of the most

authoritative documentation we have of the theological views of both rival

camps during the entire conflict. Combining this conciliar record with some

of the later works of Patriarch Nikephoros, who attended the Council, allows
8 4
us a good overview of the arguments of both sides. The theological

"* Ibid., pp. 1 0 0 - 1 0 1 , trans.- pp. 182.

8 3
Alexander, P. J . (1958) Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople-Ecclesiastical Policy and
Image Worship in the Byzantine Empire (Oxford at Clarendon Press), Oxford, pp. 18 - 22.
8 4
O'Connell, P. (1972) The Ecclesiology of St. Nicephorus I (758-828) Patriarch of
Constantinople - Pentarchy and Primacy (Pontificii Institutum Studiorum Orientalium), Rome,
(Orientalia Christiana Analecta no. 194), pp. 53 - 67.

35
suppositions of the opponents of icons, their arguments and thoughts

appear juxtaposed with those of the iconodules seeking to refute them.

Because of this, the sessions and Horos of the Second Council of Nicaea

give us a glimpse, into not only the minds and attitudes of its participants;
8 5
but also those of the iconoclastic Council of Hiereia-Blachernai.

Under the able Patriarch Tarasios, the approximately three hundred and

fifty bishops, including representatives of the sees of Rome, Alexandria,

Antioch and Jerusalem met in the same city as the first Ecumenical Council
8 6
of 325. The council condemned and anathematised the iconoclasts as

heretics. These delegates included Church leaders from among the

episcopate, the clergy and monastics. The young Emperor Constantine VI

and his mother the Empress Irene attended the last session in the
8 7
Magnaura Palace. The Horos of the proceedings begins in this way.

WE DECLARE that next to the sign of the precious

and life-giving cross, venerable holy icons-made of
colours, pebbles, or any other type of material that
is fit - may be set in the holy churches of God, on
holy utensils and vestments, on walls, and boards,

S a h a s , Icons and Logos, Sources in Eighth Century Iconoclasm. It presents a good overview
of Council and its proceedings, Horos and signatories; - s e e pp.176 - 191.
8 6
Ignatios the Deacon, The Life of Patriarch Tarasios - (BHG 1698), p. 103 This document also
confirms the presence of the representatives of the other Apostolic s e e s and the future Patriarch
Nicephoros a s well a s monastics; for trans, s e e p. 183.
8 7
Ibid., p. 106: "..-re T W V auTOKpcrrdpwv xai ndor\q Tffc 8£OKAijTou ouvd5ou £v T<? T^g
EipilH^vrig."

36
 in houses and in streets. These may be icons of
our Lord and God the Saviour Jesus Christ, or of
our Lady the holy Theotokos, or of the honourable
88
saints.

The council dealt with several sensitive issues in its deliberations. These

issues included the re-entry of former iconoclasts into the Church, the topic
89
of the simoniac clergy and the passage of twenty-two disciplinary canons.

With real insight into the practical implications of

the situation, the Council wisely received the
former iconoclasts back into the Church after they
had abjured their heresy before the assembly.
This tolerant attitude did not, however, meet with
the approval of the representatives of monasticism
and heated exchanges took place. For the first
time, it became obvious that there was a cleavage
within the Byzantine Church, which was to affect
the entire future history of Byzantium... At the
Ecumenical Council of Nicaea II, the moderate
90
party was victorious.

The signatories of the Horos of Nicaea II were also significant for

ecclesiastical history. This document bears the authority and the

imprimatur of the Pentarchy. Peter, protopresbyter of the throne of the Holy

Apostle Peter, representing Pope Hadrian, Bishop of Rome, Peter,

S a h a s , Icons and Logos, Sources in Eighth Century Iconoclasm, p. 179.

8 9
Percival (ed.) A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church
The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church, vol. 14, pp. 521 - 587, C a n o n s s e e pp.
555 - 570.
9 0
Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State, pp. 178 - 179.

37
presbyter, the abbot of the monastery of St. Sabbas also in place of Pope

Hadrian, Tarasios, Bishop of Constantinople and New Rome signed the

document. Joining them, representing the eastern Patriarchates of

Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem were the presbyters John and Thomas.

This unanimity of all the Apostolic Churches gave this conclave the

legitimacy and the status of an Ecumenical Council. However, this was not

a unanimous opinion at the time, Theodore the Studite expressed a

different view concerning this Council in his early letters. Theodore

characterised the Council as a local council, even though he later recanted

9 1
this position. A significant contribution of Nicaea II was that it furthered

the Christological definitions, which had begun in 325 at Nicaea I, the first

9 2
Ecumenical Council.

From the fourth century until the eighth, the Church responded to threats to

her unity by calling together the bishops of the Church, worldwide so that

they could define, explain and develop the points of dispute in council.

These "Ecumenical Councils," as they were later named, resulted from

specific questions of faith that arose and were in dispute within the body of

the Church. The councils, in effect, set the boundaries of what the

"orthodox" Church believed. Inside the boundary, you were orthodox,

outside, a heretic. The primary essence of all the councils revolved around

9 1
F a t o u r o s , G . ( e d . ) ( 1 9 9 1 ) Theodori Studitae Epistulae in two v o l s . ( W a l t e r D e G r u y t e r ) , B e r l i n
and New York, vol.1, epistle 38: .."dAA'ouSf auTi^v a u v o S o v o d c o u u t v i K i f v , dAA' uJg TOTTIKIIV

Kai "i5iov nT(3pa TWV "aAAwv dvopGuaaaav." Also see Henry, P. (1974), "Initial Eastern
A s s e s s m e n t s of the S e v e n t h O e c u m e n i c a l C o u n c i l " , Journal of Theological Studies n.s., vol. 2 5 ,
pp. 75 - 92.

9 2
W a l t e r , C . ( 1 9 8 8 ) " T h e I c o n a n d I m a g e of C h r i s t : T h e S e c o n d C o u n c i l of N i c a e a a n d B y z a n t i n e
T r a d i t i o n " , Sobornost, e d s . S . H a c k e l et a l . , v o l . 1 0 , pp. 2 3 - 3 3 , pp. 3 2 - 33.

38
these central questions. Who was Jesus Christ? What was the Holy

Trinity? What was the relationship between and among the Persons of the

Trinity? What did Christ's birth, life, death, resurrection and ascension

mean for mankind? From Nicaea I in 325 AD until Nicaea II in 787 AD,

these questions dominated the conciliar climate of the Church. The manner

in which the council of Nicaea II dealt with the Christological question is

revealed in this passage by Theodosios, a recalcitrant iconoclast seeking

re-admittance into the Church.

Moreover, I am well pleased that there should be

images in the churches of the faithful, especially
the image of our Lord Jesus Christ and of the holy
Mother of God, of every kind of material, both gold
and silver and of every colour, so that his
9 3
incarnation may be set forth to all men.

The Second Council of Nicaea was the last council recognised as

ecumenical by both Eastern and Western Churches. The first phase of

iconoclasm ends with the conclusion of this gathering.

Between the Storms

The reign of Irene and her son Emperor Constantine VI was a period

marked with disturbing events. Although the issue of the icons appeared to

P e r c i v a l ( e d . ) A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church
The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church, v o l . 1 4 , II N i c e , A D 7 8 7 , E x t r a c t from the
A c t s , S e s s i o n I, p. 5 3 5 .

39
be settled, external reversals in both wars and politics made the capital an

uneasy place. The tension increased between the Empress and her son,

Constantine, as he grew older. It was his desire to assume more power,

and freedom from his mother's intervention, both in his personal life and his

imperial prerogatives.

Irene chose a young woman named Maria and obliged Constantine to marry

her. Afterward, almost defiantly, he developed a relationship with a woman

of his mother's court, named Theodote. Ultimately, the stress between the

young emperor and Irene came to a boiling point. In 795 after providing

himself some positive public opinion with several military successes,

Constantine, thought he was strong enough to act. He secured a divorce

9 4
from Maria by intimidating Patriarch Tarasios with threats of bodily harm.

He then married Theodote, which was an act that was contrary to canonical

law. The Patriarch would not perform the ceremony, but Joseph, a high-

ranking priest of Hagia Sophia' Cathedral did officiate at the wedding

9 5
ceremony. This event and the subsequent crisis have come to be known

the Moechian Controversy. The monks, Plato of Sakkoudion and his

nephew, Theodore, reacted immediately as they led the outcry. Even

though they were Theodote's close relatives, Plato and Theodore

vigorously condemned the Emperor's actions, as well as Constantine and

his new wife, personally. Patriarch Tarasios and the priest Joseph were

also strongly condemned. For the monks, the canons concerning adultery

I g n a t i o s t h e D e a c o n , The Life of Patriarch Tarasios - (BHG 1698), p. 1 2 8 ; t r a n s . 191 - 1 9 2 .

Ibid., pp. 1 1 7 - 1 3 1 ; t r a n s , p p . 1 8 8 - 193.

40
had been violated and there was no room for compromise. Professor Henry

observes, "Constantine's annoyance at Saccoudion's inflexibility developed

into a conviction that imperial prerogatives were at stake, and in February

9 6
A.D. 797 he dispatched some troops to the monastery."

The acrimony caused a further deterioration and estrangement between the

patriarchal office and the monks. The monks refused to commemorate the

Patriarch in the liturgy, removing his name from the diptychs and finally

refusing to concelebrate with anyone in communion with the Emperor or the

priest Joseph. The fact that they saw no change further infuriated the

monks who now completely broke communion with Tarasios. Dr. Henry

continues his analysis and elaborates this point in this way.

The specific aim of various family and official visits

to Saccudion was to persuade the monks to return
to communion with the patriarch. At this stage in
Theodore's career a breaking of communion was
something of a technicality, since Saccudion was
rather far from the capital and disaffection would
not often become apparent by repeated absence
from appointed ceremonies. The technicality
became the source of rumours, however, and to
the extent the monks could disturb the consciences
of the people it was highly desirable that they be
persuaded to restore full relations with the
97
patriarch.

9 6
H e n r y , P. ( 1 9 6 9 ) " T h e M o e c h i a n C o n t r o v e r s y a n d t h e C o n s t a n t i n o p o l i t a n S y n o d of J a n u a r y a d .
8 0 9 " , Journal of Theological Studies n. s., v o l . X X , pp. 4 5 9 - 5 2 2 , p. 5 0 2 .

9 7
Ibid., p. 5 0 2 .

41
This forced the issue and the emperor reacted by having them banished

from the capital. The patriarch reprimanded Joseph, but Tarasios exercised

economia towards Constantine. Taking advantage of her son's

preoccupation with these events, Irene began to plot her comeback.

Moreover, Constantine suffered a number of military reversals and a

personal loss. His infant son, Leo, died devastating Constantine and

98
leaving no male heir for the e m p i r e . The next action by Irene left her sole

empress, but a completely wounded image in the perception of her

subjects. She ordered her son, the Emperor, to be blinded and shortly after

9 9
this incident, he died owing to the severity of his wounds. Irene then

became the first woman to rule the Byzantine Empire on her own. She

allowed the banished monks, Plato and Theodore, to return to the capital

and endowed a monastery to be refurbished for their use. The monastic

house of "St. John tou Stoudiou" was located in the southwestern section of

the city. [See Figure 4: - Map of Constantinople].

The monks now called Studites, under the leadership of Theodore, led the

conservative monastic party in ninth century Constantinople. The Studite

monastery became an influential centre for monastic rule and thought,

1 0 0
throughout the empire. The impact it exerted is still felt today in

T h e o p h a n e s t h e C o n f e s s o r , The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor, p. 6 4 8 .

9 9
Ibid., p 6 4 8 , B e k k e r , I. (ed.) ( 1 8 3 8 / 1 8 3 9 ) Chronicle of Georgios Cedrenus (Weberi), Bonnae,
v o l . ii, p. 3 1 . T h i s a c c o u n t is d e t a i l e d .
1 0 0
F r a z e e , C . ( 1 9 8 1 ) " T h e o d o r e of S t u d i u s a n d Ninth C e n t u r y M o n a s t i c i s m in C o n s t a n t i n o p l e " ,
Studia Monastica, v o l . 2 8 , p p . 2 7 - 5 8 , pp. 3 8 - 4 5 d e s c r i b e life a n d o r g a n i s a t i o n of S t u d i o s . T h i s
w a s to b e c o m e t h e m o d e l for Athonite M o n a s t e r i e s e v e n until p r e s e n t d a y .

42
Orthodox monastic communities around the world. Theodore was to be the

ninth century's "St. John of Damascus." In addition to his systemising the

monastic rule for coenobitic monasteries, he was a tireless writer and

fearless apologist for the cause of the icons.

The financial and fiscal chaos that ensued during Irene's time on the throne

set the stage for several abortive coups to topple her. Ultimately, her spirit

broken and with age as a factor, she was politically weakened enough to

allow a successful take over by the patrician and court official, Nikephoros,

in 802.

The Age of Nikephoros the Emperor

Nikephoros I was a man of considerable talent and experience. He was

well into middle age when he ascended the throne and had mastery of the

intricacies of politics within the court, the bureaucracy and the army. He

was a supporter of icons and a man whose personal habits were pious and

even frugal.

Nikephoros overthrew Irene, but he did not

overthrow her regime. He was backed by her
leading officials and even by one of her relatives.
Patriarch Tarasios, as well as other high officials
1 0 1
readily accepted him as Irene's successor.

1 0 1
T r e a d g o l d , W . ( 1 9 8 8 ) The Byzantine Revival (780-842) (Stanford University P r e s s ) , Stanford,
C A , p. 1 2 6 .

43
Theophanes the Confessor did not have a high opinion of the new emperor.

He used these epithets to denigrate Nikephoros: wretch, usurper, Judas,

avarice, wicked, evil and finally even the charge that the new emperor was

102
a homosexual."

Nikephoros is now considered by some modern historians to have been an

1 0 3
able, even a distinguished emperor, "a man of great ability."

Nonetheless, just as his predecessors, Nikephoros believed that the

authority of the Church should be subservient to the imperial wish. In the

early part of 806 this attitude and events resulted in another clash. The

respected elderly Patriarch Tarasios died and the emperor, wishing to

appear conciliatory, sought the advice of many seeking a suitable

replacement. The monastics supported a candidate for patriarch from their

own ranks. There is a belief that Plato of Sakkoudion even named

1 0 4
Theodore, his nephew, as his choice. In spite of the fact that Theodore

did not name himself, he did strongly urge that a monastic with certain

1 0 5
characteristics be elevated. Perhaps not coincidentally, these traits

described him perfectly.

T h e o p h a n e s the C o n f e s s o r , The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor, p p . 6 5 7 ff.

1 0 3
Treadgold, W. (1997) A History of the Byzantine State and Society (Stanford University
P r e s s ) , S t a n f o r d , C A , p. 4 2 4 .
1 0 4
T h e o d o r a s S t u d i t e , Laudatio Platonis, PG vol. xcix, col. 837 b, "TCX <|;Ti<|>(auaTa £m TTOAAOUI;

oi TTOAAOI, (ig "tKaaTog ETXEV K a T d (fuAiav r| dArjGEiav.."

1 0 5
F a t o u r o s (ed.) Theodori Studitae Epistulae in two v o l s . , v o l . I, Epistle 16, ad Nucqfiopog
ficratAs? pp. 4 6 - 48, specifically lines 3 0 - 3 1 . T h e o d o r e s p e c i f i e s that the E m p e r o r ' s c h o i c e be
m a d e from a m o n g the " b i s h o p s , a b b o t s or s t y l i t e s but definitely not a l a y m a n . " H e c o n t i n u e s to
s t a t e that the c h o s e n c a n d i d a t e s h o u l d be a b l e to direct the p a t h of o t h e r C h r i s t i a n s . E v e n t h o u g h
Theodore does not name himself, it is o b v i o u s he is describing a person with his known
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . A l s o , s e e next n o t e .

44
When no clear consensus candidate emerged, the emperor used his

prerogative, nominated and secured the election of Nikephoros, a layman of

the court to the patriarchal throne. The elevation of Tarasios from layman

to patriarch served as a model for such a move. The monastics were

infuriated and the powder keg of yet another confrontation only required a

spark to ignite it. This spark came in the form of an old wound between the

monks, the patriarch and the emperor. The issue of the marriage of

Constantine VI re-emerged, specifically because of the imposition of

imperial power. A local synod was summoned and it reinstated the priest,

Joseph, at the request of the crown. Emperor Nikephoros did this to re-pay

Joseph for his services to the empire. Professor Henry describes these

events in this way:

The emperor instigated this, and he was willing to

open this old wound not primarily because he
wanted to antagonize the monks, but because
Joseph had served him well in helping to bring an
end to a dangerous revolt in the year 803. In
return for his services to the State, Joseph was to
1 0 6
be restored to favour with the Church.

Once again, the monks, the patriarch and the crown were at loggerheads.

The moderate Patriarch Nikephoros tried to find a middle ground, but he

was opposed and even scorned by the zealot monks. The emperor did not

react in a conciliatory fashion.

H e n r y , " T h e M o e c h i a n C o n t r o v e r s y a n d the C o n s t a n t i n o p o l i t a n S y n o d of J a n u a r y a d . 8 0 9 " , p.

506.

45
The emperor exiled Theodore, Joseph [Theodore's brother and Archbishop

of Thessalonica] and Plato to different islands near Constantinople, and

when the other Studites refused to accept the council's decision he

expelled them from their monastery and exiled some of them. It was hardly

an ideal result for Nikephoros, but the emperor could not regard a monk

who presumed to excommunicate him and his patriarch as anything but

107
disloyal, and allowing disloyalty to go unpunished endangered his throne.

During this exile, imposed shortly after the Synod of January AD 809,

Theodore kept in constant communication with his supporters and

encouraged them to resist, speaking out even to the point of martyrdom. In

Theodore's eyes the responsibility of a monk was clear and in his

1 0 8
perception, the perfect role model for monks was St. John the Baptist.

This point of view was to have a great affect during the second phase of

iconoclasm and in the events of Patriarch Methodios' life. Theodore used

the issue of Joseph, the priest, to appeal to both Pope Leo, as the inheritor

1 0 9
of the senior Apostolic See and to Patriarch Nikephoros. Theodore

asked Pope Leo to intervene and to resolve the issue of Joseph's re-

instatement. Moreover, Theodore assured Patriarch Nikephoros that he did

indeed accept the concept of the "economy of the saints", which was the

1 0 7
T r e a d g o l d , The Byzantine Revival (780-842), pp. 156 - 157.
1 0 8
Hatlie, P. ( 1 9 9 6 ) " T h e P o l i t i c s of S a l v a t i o n : T h e o d o r e of S t o u d i o s o n M a r t y r d o m (Martyrion)
a n d S p e a k i n g O u t ( P a r r h e s i a ) " , OOP, vol. 5 0 , pp. 2 6 3 - 2 8 7 , p. 2 7 7 .
1 0 9
F a t o u r o s (ed.) Theodori Studitae Epistulae in two v o l s . , vol.1 E p i s t l e s 3 3 a n d 3 4 to L e o a r e
v a g u e a n d n e v e r m e n t i o n either the E m p e r o r or the P a t r i a r c h by n a m e . T h e letter to N i k e p h o r o s -
Epistle no. 30.

46
primary charge against Theodore and his brother Joseph, the Archbishop of

Thessaloniki at the Synod of 809.

In 811, prior to launching a military campaign against the Bulgars, the

emperor tried to reconcile with the exiled monks, but apparently to no avail.

The emperor, his son, the co-emperor Staurakios and his son-in-law

Michael Rangabe left Constantinople to begin the military campaign. The

first of the engagements went well, but in July 811 a crushing defeat

occurred. The emperor was killed, Staurakios was severely wounded and

the army was devastated. Staurakios was crowned emperor in the capital

but his days were numbered from the onset. Within a short time, he

abdicated, owing to his wounds. He withdrew taking on a monk's habit to

await death, and died shortly thereafter. Michael Rangabe was the obvious

choice to be the new emperor. These events happened within months of

each other. Theophanes the Confessor relates that Michael restored

1 1 0
Theodore and the Studite monks. The restoration was reported by

Theodore, himself, in his famous Eulogy of Plato. Theodore related that not

only had the monks been allowed back to Constantinople, but that they

1 1 1
were to be allowed to re-inhabit the Studios Monastery. After two years

of ineffective leadership, Michael I was toppled and Leo V, the Armenian

became emperor in 813.

T h e o p h a n e s t h e C o n f e s s o r , The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor, p. 6 7 8 . T h e o p h a n e s is

not v e r y c o m p l i m e n t a r y of t h e E m p e r o r N i k e p h o r o s . T h i s v i e w is s u p p o r t e d by O s t r o g o r s k y - s e e p.
197. C f both A l e x a n d e r , Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople-Ecclesiastical Policy and Image
Worship in the Byzantine Empire, p p , 9 6 - 9 7 ; a n d T r e a d g o l d , The Byzantine Revival (780-842, p.
1 6 9 , s e e note 2 2 7 , a r g u e a g a i n s t this o p i n i o n .
1 1 1
M i g n e , J . - P. ( e d . ) ( 1 8 5 7 - 1 8 6 6 ) Patrologiae cursus completus: Series graeca, P a r i s , vol. 9 9 .

47
 Leo V and the Re-Appearance of Iconoclasm

When we look at Leo's background and the rapid series of reversals that

the empire suffered between 811 and 813, we might well understand the

resurgence of iconoclasm. Leo was from Armenia, the eastern portion of

the empire an area known to harbour iconoclastic sympathies. Additionally

there arose a question concerning the coronation oath exacted from by

Patriarch Nikephoros from Leo before his coronation. Turner explores this

issue and Leo's background in his monograph. He explains:

The pervasive influence of pro-lsaurian and

iconoclast elements in Leo's circle prompted
Nicephorus to ask for confirmation of the oath after
the coronation. Leo's word as general was quite
different from Leo's word as emperor, and
Nikephoros was especially sensitive to matters of
1 1 2
canonical propriety.

In addition, as a military man, Leo was a pragmatist. He had observed that

during the reigns of the iconoclast emperors, there was relative success in

war, good economic expansion, and even something more personally

1 1 3
appealing, a long sovereignty for the ruling house. Leo greatly admired

the accomplishments of emperors Leo III and Constantine V. These "facts"

1 1 2
T u r n e r , D. ( 1 9 9 0 ) " T h e O r i g i n s a n d A c c e s s i o n of L e o V ( 8 1 3 - 8 2 0 ) " , JOB, vol. 4 0 , pp. 1 7 2 - 2 0 3 ,
p . 2 0 0 . T h i s e n t i r e a r t i c l e i s a n e x c e l l e n t o v e r v i e w of L e o V ' s a c c e s s i o n .
1 1 3
I g n a t i o s t h e D e a c o n ( 1 9 9 8 ) The Life of Patriarch Nicephoros I of Constantinople in Byzantine
Defenders of Images - Eight Saints' Lives in English translation, trans. E . A. Fisher, (Dumbarton
O a k s L i b r a r y a n d C o l l e c t i o n ) , W a s h i n g t o n , D . C . , p. 7 5 , " . . . b e c a u s e <their f a n t a s i e s > p r o m i s e d
length of d a y s a n d v i c t o r i e s to him if he w o u l d vomit out h i s impiety upon what had been
e s t a b l i s h e d in t h e p a s t . "

48
inevitably led Leo to only one conclusion. God was not pleased with the

use of icons, therefore, His displeasure was the root cause of all the recent

set backs for the empire. The iconodules were wrong, and it was his duty

as emperor to correct the path leading to ruin. Turner illustrates the

mindset of Leo in this way:

Leo, like his contemporaries, was caught up in the

uncertainties of a time when the Roman state was
beset by external threats and internal upheavals.
The modern reader may not appreciate the
seriousness of the empire's troubles in 813 since
the iconodule chroniclers, keen to minimise Leo's
glory, avoided stressing the urgency of the crisis
from which Leo personally delivered the state. He
was popular with the army, and sensitive to the
mood of the tagmata and the demoi...The sakra
Leo issued upon the death of Krum, copies of
which were distributed throughout the empire,
proclaimed that God had shown confidence in him
and the military. Leo was after all the first emperor
to have been chosen from the ranks of the Army
since Leo III in 717. No mention is made in the
extant fragments of the sakra of the Isaurians or
iconoclasm, but the tenor is clearly that of a
soldier-emperor intent on reviving the power and
prestige of his office, and in that process the
restoration of iconoclasm on the Isaurian model
1 1 4
was in many ways the next logical step.

1 1 4
T u r n e r , " T h e O r i g i n s a n d A c c e s s i o n of L e o V ( 8 1 3 - 8 2 0 ) " , p. 2 0 1 , a l s o s e e n o t e s 1 4 3 a n d 1 4 4
(same page).

49
As can be observed in the above quote, the post iconoclastic refashioning

of history, whether from chroniclers or hagiographers, diminished the

positive motivations and the effect of Leo's leadership. Given the

contemporary accounts, neither he nor his reign can be assessed in a

balanced and objective manner.

Antagonists Become Allies

It is said that politics creates strange bedfellows, but they can also result

from conviction. As Leo began his new denunciation of the use of images

within the empire, the Patriarch and Theodore the Studite, once personal

rivals and severe critics of each other, joined to confront this common threat

to the peace of the Church. Leo shared the concept, which other emperors

before him had held, that the Church should, in all things, be subservient to

1 1 5
the will of the emperor. Both the Patriarch and the Studite monks, led by

Theodore, were scandalised by this opinion. Disregarding past differences

with the Patriarch and in keeping with his character Theodore was not timid

in expressing his opinions. He is quoted supporting Nikephoros at the

conclusion of a lengthy dialogue between Leo and the Patriarch.

Do not undo the status of the Church, for the

Apostle spoke thus: 'And he gave some apostles,

1 1 5
Ignatios the Deacon, The Life of Patriarch Nicephoros I of Constantinople in Byzantine
Defenders of Images - Eight Saints' Lives in English translation, pp.101 - 102: " E m p e r o r , it is
obvious to us and to everyone. A s y o u s a y , that you have been appointed to act as a mediator over
Christ's greatest flock "(Italics in t r a n s . ) .

50
 and some prophets, and some evangelists and
some pastors and teachers, for the perfecting of
the saints' (Eph. IV, II), but he did not speak of
Emperors. To you, Emperor, has been entrusted
the political system and the army. Take care of
them, and leave the Church to its shepherds and
116
teachers according to the Apostle.

The Emperor surrounded himself with an inner circle of iconoclastic

advisors, quite a few being of Armenian descent. The learned John the

1 1 7
Grammarian was believed to be one of them. Leo strengthened his

support among lower clergy, bishops and monastics. These were men

easily bought or those seeking to curry favour with the emperor. Leo's

views were convincing to some, others he bribed or offered high posts. In

their letters or writings, both Nikephoros and Theodore made all of these

1 1 8
accusations. It should be noted that anyone agreeing with Leo would

have been extremely suspect in their eyes.

Tension steadily rose between the Emperor and the iconodules from

Epiphany to Easter of 815. Leo ostensibly sought to compromise. He

would recognise the value of images, as "teaching tools or visual aids" for

the unsophisticated, but all images must be placed high within the

A l e x a n d e r , Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople-Ecclesiastical Policy and Image Worship in

the Byzantine Empire, p p . 1 3 0 - 1 3 2 , t r a n s , by A l e x a n d e r from Vita Nicetae s e e p. 1 3 0 note 2 , a n d
p. 1 3 2 note 1. A s w a s d i s c u s s e d e a r l i e r , this e c h o e s J o h n of D a m a s c u s ' a r g u m e n t s .

1 1 7
Ibid., p 1 2 7 , a l s o s e e note f, p . 2 3 5 .
1 1 8
F a t o u r o s (ed.) Theodori Studitae Epistulae in two v o l s . , v o l . ii, E p i s t l e 1 1 2 to E u t h y m i o s of
S a r d i s " (»MOQT)OEV 6 I|iupvcuo<; £v ETTIOKOTTOK; K C U 6 Xepo&voq, i v ityou^voic. X p u a o n o A m g , 6
Tfjg A ( o u , 6 Tfjg XwpaQ j i i K p o u 5 E T V TTCCVTEI; o i E V " a c r r e i . "

51
 119
churches. This would eliminate the veneration of the material of the i c o n .

Both Nikephoros and Theodore rejected this proposition, recognising it as

merely a first step in a plan to ban images totally. The emperor angered by

their arrogant defiance, demanded Nikephoros' resignation. Nikephoros

refused to resign detailing the facts that he was upholding orthodoxy, the

decrees of an Ecumenical Council (Nicaea II) and that he could only be

"judged" by his peers, the other Patriarchs of the Pentarchy. Nikephoros

rather eloquently answered the emperor's demand.

Oh Emperor, I shall not descend in this casual way,

for I gave you no reason to depose me. If,
however, I am forced because of my orthodoxy, or
piety, either by yourself or by one of your imperial
1 2 0
officers—send him, and I shall descend.

An infuriated Leo deposed and exiled the Patriarch as well as Theodore

and his followers. It was from these places of exile that both men of

orthodoxy produced some of their most significant writings. They also

became reconciled with each other. Literary and iconic evidence of this

reconciliation can be seen in Figure 2. As further proof of this O'Connell

121
says this, "Theodore even agreed to count Tarasios among the Fathers."

The recanting of his condemnation of both Tarasios and Nikephoros, by

Bekker, I. ( e d . ) (1838) "Scriptor Incertus de L e o n e Armeno", Paris, col.1023c: "niKpov

OUVEAGE I^UTV "iva TT£pi^Xw|i£v trdvTa TO xani^a. ETTEI ei od Bod^Ei, yvuSGi "OTI OUTOQ OU

napaxwpoOfiEv a i i T d G i a e ETVCU."

1 2 0
A l e x a n d e r , Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople-Ecclesiastical Policy and Image Worship in
the Byzantine Empire, p. 1 3 3 , A l e x a n d e r c i t e s Vita Nicetae col. xxx b, cited in. G r u m e l , Regestes
no. 399.
1 2 1
O'Connell, The Ecclesiology of St. Nicephorus I (758-828) Patriarch of Constantinople -
Pentarchy and Primacy, pp. 50 - 51.

52
Theodore, would influence future events in the relationship between

Patriarch Methodios and the followers of Theodore, the Studites.

To many scholars this phase of the icon debate was theologically a pale

reflection of phase one. Ostrogorsky characterises the tone of the entire

1 2 2
movement a s rather lack lustre and without originality. Professor

1 2 3
Alexander strongly argues the opposite point of view. The focus of this

phase of iconoclasm was primarily on the issue of who would wield

authority over Church-state affairs. This concept of authority was a tangled

web and it became a s will be seen, a three-sided issue. The patriarch and

secular clergy, the monastics and the imperial interests would clash

repeatedly concerning power in the Church. These confrontations were to

be the root cause for continued antagonisms and disputes in the future,

most especially during the patriarchate of Methodios.

Leo chose a new patriarch who would be more reasonable. On Easter

Sunday, 815, an iconoclastic patriarch Theodotus was enthroned. He had

excellent political credentials, in that he was related to the family of

Constantine V and was well known to Leo, having been a member of his

court retinue. Immediately, a synod was summoned to repudiate Nicaea II

and to re-establish the "legitimacy" of the Council of 754 (Hiereia -

Blachernai). Theodotus presided over this gathering, called the Council of

St. Sophia (815), and John the Grammarian steered the discussions. It is

1 2 2
O s t r o g o r s k y , History of the Byzantine State, pp. 2 0 2 - 203.
1 2 3
A l e x a n d e r , P. J . ( 1 9 5 3 ) " T h e I c o n o c l a s t i c C o u n c i l of S t . S o p h i a ( 8 1 5 ) a n d its Definition
( H o r o s ) " , DOP, V o l . 7, p p . 3 7 - 6 5 .

53
considered that this council was portrayed as lacking of innovative thinking

as well as relying primarily on past iconoclastic councils for its evidence.

Previously discredited and repetitive patristic references are replete within

the proceedings of this council. Alexander, Travis, Featherstone and

O'Connell each give us accounts of the council's proceedings taken from

Nikephoros' Refutation and Overthrowing ("'E^eyxoc; KCU 'AvcnpoTTn) of the

1 2 4
Horos of the Council of 815 written from exile circa 820. This was the

time of general exodus of iconodules from Constantinople, which included a

young Methodios. This should have occurred during the pontificates of

either Pope Leo III or Pope Stephen III.

Notwithstanding, the joint opposition of patriarch and monk, the Emperor

Leo and his allies persisted on their course of action. Hussey emphasises

that Leo's actions had created, once again, a fissure between Rome and

Constantinople. She points out, rather correctly, that in effect, Leo had

painted himself into a corner. Rome could not allow the deposing of

1 2 5
Nikephoros and support imperial interests. Consequently, the entire

episode lacked legitimacy and was destined to play itself out. Leo would

not live to see this happen because of his murder. Mango describes the

effect of Leo's assassination at Christmas Liturgy in St. Sophia, the year

820, in these words:

2
Featherstone, J . (1984) "The Refutation of the Council of 815 by Nicephorus," PhD
dissertation, Harvard. Alexander, Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople - Ecclesiastical Policy
and Image Worship in the Byzantine Empire, s e e appendix for summary; Travis, J . (1984) In
Defence of the Faith - the Theology of Patriarch Nikephoros of Constantinople, (Hellenic College
Press), Brookline, MA, s e e introduction and summary; O'Connell, The Ecclesiology of St.
Nicephorus I (758-828) Patriarch of Constantinople - Pentarchy and Primacy.
1 2 5
Hussey, The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire, pp. 58 - 60.

54
 Fortunately, the luck of the Iconoclasts appeared to
be breaking: far from dying in his bed and
establishing a dynasty, Leo V was brutally
murdered after a fairly short rule (820). His
assassin, Michael II (820-29), stopped the
persecution and recalled the exiles, but did not
126
give them any further satisfaction.

Mango, C . (1975) "Historical Introduction to Iconoclasm," in Iconoclasm - Papers given at the

Ninth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, eds. A. Bryer and J . Herrin, (University of
Birmingham Press), Birmingham, UK, pp. 1 - 6, p. 5.

55
 - / ^ O K ' JUUJ&oy uutTKl Ktti^xrapaxjvjtf JUST'S*

jj V^yxs trap */VIXJ fs& ' p ^ o t o IAJO 1 / K ^ T ™

0 ft"™/

0 'T / T O i A-cro c t r o t / ULJavTr&y t * f r j 'Z~°of * °

i J

9 1
K

Figure 2: - Sts. Nikephoros and Theodore the Studite Reconciled. Also shows Emperor Theophilos

meeting with Iconoclastic Bishops. Taken from Theodore Psalter, British Library 127

Lowden, J . (1997) £ar/y Christian and Byzantine Art (Phaidon Press), L o n d o n , p. 2 8 1 .

56
 Civil War Again

For the next three years, Michael II fought a civil war for the throne with

Thomas the Slav. While the war was being fought, the iconoclastic

Patriarch Theodotus died in 821 AD. Michael named Antonios Cassimates

to assume the patriarchal throne. Antonios had played a decisive role in

the leadership of the Council of St. Sophia. After defeating Thomas,

Michael, who was a moderate man in his personal habits, faced constant

attacks from outside the empire, consequently he did little to agitate public

sentiment. He invited the exiled patriarch and monks back to the city. For

the most part, the iconophiles were not extensively persecuted or abused

during his reign. The exception was specifically Michael's treatment of

Methodios. The Emperor accused Methodios of political crimes, in

particular of being the author of an anti-Michael leaflet. For this Michael

severely tortured Methodios. In addition to great territorial losses suffered

during Michael's reign, Byzantium lost two great pillars of orthodoxy while

he reigned. Patriarch Nikephoros and Theodore the Studite, courageous

defenders and champions of the Church both died shortly before Michael II.

The emperor died peacefully in 829, leaving his throne to his teenage son

and co-emperor Theophilos.

The Last Stand of Iconoclasm

Theophilos was raised and educated in Constantinople. Like Constantine

V, before him, he had an enthusiasm for learning and a sharp mind. His

teacher John the Grammarian, a devoted iconoclast, passed on to his pupil

57
not only his fervour for learning but also his strong iconoclastic zeal.

Speaking of Theophilos' upbringing, Theophanes the Continuator informs

us,

Though he had not chosen John the Grammarian

patriarch, Michael had great respect for John's
learning. He put John in a place where he could
lend the imperial family some much-needed
intellectual respectability, by making John tutor to
his son and heir, Theophilos...He [Theophilos]
grew up under John's influence to be admiring of
his tutor and a good deal like him; cultured, clever,
a little too self-confident, and a convinced
128
iconoclast.

It is reported that the young emperor greatly admired Arab learning, art and

culture. An interesting set of circumstances characterised the parallels

between Theophilos and some of his predecessors. He and Constantine V,

were both men of unusual education and were bothdedicated iconoclasts.

Theophilos and Leo IV both married beautiful, able and devout iconophilic

wives. Theophilos and Constantine VI both sadly lost infant sons. The

accidental death of Theophilos' young son, Constantine, who drowned in a

1 2 9
palace cistern in 830 or 8 3 1 , was considered a bad omen. After various

losses to Moslem forces in the Mediterranean and the Aegean, the most

embarrassing loss was Arab forces capturing the city of Amorion, which

1 2 8
Treadgold, The Byzantine Revival (780-842), p. 232. Primary source Bekker, I. (ed.) (1838)
Chronographia Theophanes Continuatus (Weberi), Bonnae, cols. 107 - 109.
1 2 9
Bekker (ed.) Chronographia Theophanes Continuatus, col. 101 d.

58
was this dynasty's home city and a centre of considerable strategic

importance. Militarily, the area was recaptured shortly afterwards, but the

1 3 0
psychological effect had a great impact on the populace of the capital.

Whittow relates his opinion that even the suspicion of a traitor who may

have aided the Arab army was inadequate to reverse the popular

interpretation that God's favour was no longer on the side of the

1 3 1
iconoclasts. The empire was failing and the people took notice. When

Antonios died in 838, Theophilos selected his teacher, John the

Grammarian, to be elevated to the patriarchal throne. John is perhaps one

of the most enigmatic figures ever to occupy the throne of St Andrew. He

was admittedly one of the most brilliant men to ever fill that office, but also

one of the most vilified. He has come down in the record of the Church as

a sorcerer, a practitioner of the black arts and a tool of the Devil.

While he was thus plotting, The Devil, who had

made these suggestions to him, was walking
through Byzantium. He finds John called the
Grammarian saying: T a k e this man, who will be
useful to you for what you plan; for he is a vessel
of election for me that he may carry my name
against the Orthodox.' Therefore, just as Paul
became the mouth of Christ, so this man became

Contemporary hagiography, even of Methodios' authorship, praises the 42 Martyrs of Amorion

linking their triumph to iconoclasm and its defeat Euodios Monachos (c. 843-this edition 1989).
"Hoi Sarantaduo Martyres tou Amoriou," in Hagiologiaki Bibliotheki, vol. II, ed, S . Euthymiades
(Nea Smyrne), pp. 18 - 30.
1 3 1
Whittow, M. (1996) The Making of Byzantium, 600-1025 /a.k.a. The Making of Orthodox
Byzantium] (University of California Press), Berkeley/Los Angeles, C A , pp. 153 - 154.

59
 the mouth of the devil, and just as a torrent is
formed by the drawing together of many showers,
and carries ill-smelling and troubled waters, so he
also from the muddy treasure of his heart brought
forth rotten and muddy dogmas, giving those who
came to him to drink of his disordered
perversion.

This example combined with the prominent place John possessed in the

anathemas of the Synodicon, and the iconographic ridicule we find in the

Chludov Psalter (see figure 3) allows us to comprehend the enmity, which

John aroused in his detractors. Nonetheless, beneath the surface there

was a quiet admiration of John's intellectual abilities and his acumen in the

world of scholarship. What is apparent from sources of the times is that

after John assumed the patriarchal throne there was an increase in the

persecution of iconoclasts. Chroniclers' evidence and vitae of the times

1 3 3
record several incidences in which monks were tortured and maimed.

Details of this type of repression will be discussed in later portions of this

thesis.

Theosterictos (n.d.) "Vita S . Nicetae the Confessor", In Acta Sanctorum Aprilis, pp. xxiv - xxvii,
p. 262 c.
1 3 3
Bekker (ed.) Chronographia Theophanes Continuatus, col.117 a - 123 a. Details of torture of
the iconographer Lazarus and the Monk-Brothers Theodore and Theophanes; also s e e
Cunningham, M. B. (1991) The Life of Michael the Synkellos - Text, Translation and Commentary,
sl
M. B. Cunningham, 1 edition (Belfast Byzantine Enterprises, Queen's University of Belfast),
Belfast (Belfast Byzantine Texts and Translations), pp. 79 - 99, account of tattooing s e e pp. 86 and
87.

60
 ft*

Figure 3: - John the Grammarian whitewashing Christ's Icon from Chludov Psalter

Historical Museum Moscow 133

Lowden Early Christian and Byzantine Art., p. 181.

61
 Iconoclasm's Last Breath

It is perhaps one of the great ironies of history that the events surrounding

one of the principal conflicts in the thousand-year story of the Byzantine

Empire should end with a whimper and not a bang. The turbulent hundred

and twenty-five years of dissension, rankle, confrontation and even sacrifice

unto death just ended. On 20 January, 842 Theophilos died and with his

passing, iconoclasm ceased to be a vibrant movement. Theophilos died at

the very young age of twenty-nine and exactly as in the case of Leo IV, left

the empire in the hands of his orthodox iconodulic wife. Theodora became

regent for their very young emperor son, Michael III and she was

determined to restore icons to the Church.

The deaths of the iconoclastic emperors Constantine V and Theophilos

occurred some sixty years apart and there are a number of distinctions that

should be examined between the two seemingly similar scenarios. First,

there was a meaningful difference in the ages of the two heirs and young

emperors; Constantine VI was nine or ten when his father died, while

Michael III was only one or two when Theophilos died prematurely.

Secondly, Theodora and Irene were women of completely differing

temperaments and personalities. Unlike Irene, Theodora had the benefit of

able and trustworthy advisors. Initially, she received excellent service from

the Logothete Theoktistos, the eunuch. Also, the empress' relatives

provided her with substantial support, especially in the early years of her

regency.

62
 And the men of God, George and Methodios, took
along Sergios Niketiates, Theoktistos, Bardas, and
Petronas, very orthodox men who happened to be
leaders of the Senate...She [Theodora] was filled
with exceeding joy and ordered both parties [the
iconophiles and the iconoclast] to assemble at
Kanikleiou and to have a debate with each other
based on the divine Scriptures. When this
occurred and the whole phalanx of the iconoclasts
in its first and only assault could not withstand the
force of the thrice-blessed Methodios in his
arguments from the Scriptures, they completely
threw away their shields and immediately deserted
1 3 5
<the battlefields

Continuing, iconoclasm was not a vibrant, accepted and popular doctrine as

it had been prior to Nicaea II; in truth, iconoclasm had run its course and

was a tired ideology. Lastly, the significant benefit to the iconophiles'

ultimate victory was the recognised acceptance and authority of Nicaea II

by the Universal Church. It was now part of the riapdSoaic; of the Church.

This Tradition was not a casual concept. It had, as will be shown, a

staggering and enduring impact on the thinking of Methodios and all his

decisions.

Vitae of Sts. David, Symeon and George of Lesbos, A. M. Talbot (ed.) Byzantine Defenders of
Images - Eight Saints in English Translation, trans. D. Domingo-Foraste pp. 216 - 218. Bardas and
Petronas were Theodora's brothers.

63
 Methodios - the Life

With the defeat of iconoclasm as a force, we can turn our attention to an

equally complex story, the life of Methodios of Constantinople. Who was

this churchman? What was the meaning of his life? What was his place in

the history of the great conflict of iconoclasm? Within a short time of his

death, Photios the Great was composing a lengthy canon of liturgical

1 3 6
praises to his memory. However, Karlin-Hayter and Grumel, of the last

century, view Ignatios' election as Methodios' successor as a corrective

repositioning of the Methodian policies towards the recalcitrant

137
iconoclasts. Where does this leave the attempt to "reconstruct" his life?

The solution to this puzzle must, of necessity, begin with the printed Vita of

1 3 8
St. Methodios. But even there, Professor Sevdenko cautions: "In its

printed form the Life of Patriarch Methodios (d. 847) is reputedly an

abbreviation of one by Gregory Asbestas, Photios' ally, and appears to be

1 3 9
late [speaking of the time of authorship]." Unfortunately, this vita is the

point of entree for all studies of Methodios. This anonymous panegyric is a

"classic" account of the life of a late iconodulic saint. Also, we will

demonstrate how the hagiographic genre is used to portray Methodios.

Schiro, J . (ed.) (1972) Analecta Hymnica Graeca -lunnii (Instituto di Studi Bizanti e Neoellinici
- Universita di Roma), Roma, ref. Junii 14.
1 3 7
Karlin-Hayter, P. (1975) "Gregory of Syracuse, Ignatios and Photios," in Iconoclasm - Papers
given at the Ninth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, eds. A. Bryer and J . Herrin (Centre for
Byzantine Studies - University of Birmingham), Birmingham, UK, pp. 141 - 145, pp. 141 ff.
1 3 8
"Sanctus Methodius- Constantinopolitanus patriarcha." c o l s . 1 2 4 4 - 1272.
1 3 9
Sevcenko, I. (1975) "Hagiography of the Iconoclastic Period," in Iconoclasm - Papers given at
the Ninth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, eds. A. Bryer and J . Herrin (Centre for Byzantine
Studies - University of Birmingham), Birmingham, UK, pp. 113 - 132; p. 116 s e e note 22. Also s e e
Dvornik, F. (1948) The Photian Schism, History and Legend (Cambridge University Press),
Cambridge, UK, pp. 17 ff. for an expansion of the relationship between Methodios, Gregory and
Photios.

64
Therefore, as was previously cautioned it should not be depended upon

completely. Substantiating details and cross-references concerning

Methodios' life are provided in the vitae of several contemporary saints and

in several chronicles of the age. These vitae include the lives of Sts.

loannikios, David, Symeon and George of Lesbos, Theodora the Empress

and Michael Synkellos. Some contemporary correspondences also allow a

glimpse into the character of Methodios. These are written by Theodore the

Studite and by Ignatios the Deacon. As was previously stated, the Vita of

Methodios, Patriarch of Constantinople, allegedly a condensed version of a

lost one by Gregory of Syracusa, is the point of beginning for a study of

140
Methodios. The existing printed vita begins with these words:

Hierarch and simultaneously an ascetic and a

martyr of Christ, if this is possible, who was praised
as worthy by the angels, archangels of God
decorated him as the first and holiest among
1 4 1
hierarchs...

As can be seen, the praise for Methodios begins at the outset of the vita

and it continues throughout the entire opus. Nonetheless, there are some

facts concerning his life that can be deduced from his printed life. The vita

states that Methodios was born into a wealthy and distinguished family in

the Byzantine city of Syracusa in Sicily. The exact date of his birth is not

Karlin-Hayter, "Gregory of Syracuse, Ignatios and Photios," p. 143.

1 4 1
P G , vol. c, col. 1244 d: ' " k p d p x r i v , Koti 'aaKriTi^v d u a , Kai XpiaTou ndpTupa, \iovoic, 5' "av
y^voiTO Suvorrdv 'ayytAotQ 'tyicwijidaai 'a^i'ug, *ti 'apxayy^Aoic; 0 E O G , ofye TI^V irpoi-niv Kai
9e(av ' u p a p x t a v KoanoOaiv ..."

65
known, but a reliable estimate would be sometime during the latter period of

the reign of Constantine V (741-775). The young Methodios had the

1 4 2
advantage of a classical education. This would conform to the later

verifiable facts of his comprehensive learning, his intricate writing style and

his gift of oratory. The vita continues to state that he was afforded all the

luxuries of life and he is said to have excelled in grammar, history and

writing. Methodios is described as a youth with a "regal bearing and mature

143
beyond his y e a r s . " It is most probable that at this point in his life he had

little idea that he would be a churchman or even a future confessor for the

faith.

The turning point in his life appeared to have occurred when he was least

1 4 4
expecting it, and is described as "God's Providence". As many a young

man in the empire, he sought to further his education while seeking fame

and fortune in the capital. It was at this time, he came under the influence

1 4 5
of a certain unnamed holy man of God. This man lit a passion in the

young Methodios for a life of holiness, as an alternative to seeking the path

1 4 6
of personal glory. Following the Scriptural admonition, Methodios then

1 4 7
distributed his wealth to the poor and needy. He entered the monastic

Moffatt A "Schooling in the Iconoclastic Centuries", in Iconoclasm, pp. 8 5 - 9 2 .

1 4 3
P G . vol. c , col. 1 2 4 5 b: " PaaiAiKuiv d^iwjidTwv TUXETV E ^ I E U E V O , Kai TtJ Bfty Ti£pi<|>avrte
KcrraaTfjvai..."
1 4 4
P G , vol. C , c o l . 1 2 4 5 c: °EK npovoi'ag 0£ou."
1 4 5
Hints in the Vita of St. Euthymios of Sardis, written by Methodios, indicate that St. Euthymios
may be this "man of God".
1 4 6
P G , vol. c, col. 1 2 4 5 c: " K a i si OUTU &6£,T]C, Epflg (5 v t a v f a , Sid T( urf TI^V (ifvouaav jifiAAov
Kai Tr|v 9E(OV d v n Tfj<; napepxonEvric; KaTanAouTtiaEia?.."
1 4 7
Mark 1 0 , 2 1 , Luke 1 8 , 22. This is typical of the holiness by which saints are characterised in
hagiographic accounts.

66
bios at the monastery, XnvoAdKKoq in Bithynia. It was there, that he

rigorously devoted himself to the ascetic pursuits of fasting and prayer. The

vita does point out that he realised neither laxity nor excessive ascetic

practice was beneficial to his spiritual progress, therefore, he practised

1 4 9
them judiciously. His faithful practices and his abilities became apparent

1 5 0
and he was soon named Tiyou|i£vog (abbot) of the monastery. This

period of Methodios' life is extremely sketchy, especially if the vita is the

only source of reference used. That Methodios reached the rank of Abbot

1 5 1
can be independently confirmed from the letters of Theodore Studite.

Even though Methodios' rank is confirmed, there are no chronological

references in these three epistles. Using the date of Theodore's death, 11

November 826, as a terminus post quern and the known dates of the

patriarchal years of Nikephoros, as well as the imperial and papal histories,

a general chronology can be determined. Alexander states, "However,

when in 813 Leo V, the Armenian, ascended to the imperial throne and

1 5 2
soon began to favour iconoclasm..." Nonetheless, it is an interesting

note that the Chronicle of Theophanes the Confessor ends at about the

same time. It characterises Leo as "pious" and states, "he (Leo) wrote to

Patriarch Nikephoros an assurance of his own orthodoxy and asked for

1 4 8
Janin, R. (1975) Les eglises et les monasteres des grands centres Byzantins (Institut Francais
d' etudes Byzantines), Paris, pp. 189 - 190, cited in P G , vol. c, col. 1246 d.
1 4 9
P G , vol. c , col. 1245 d. - y. Perhaps, this is a suggestion of the moderate nature of
Methodios' character. This depiction by his biographer is appropriate to contradict later
suggestions, from his detractors, that he was rigid and doctrinaire.
1 5 0
Ringrose, K. M. (1979) "Monks and Society in Iconoclastic Byzantium", Byzantine Studies -
special edition essays offered in Honour of Peter Charanis, vol. 6, pp. 130 - 151. p. 141, points out
that this was a prestigious monastic centre for aristocrats aspiring to church vocations - s e e note
24.
1 5 1
Fatouros (ed.) Theodori Studitae Epistulae in two vols., vol. II epistles nos. 274, 377, 549.
1 5 2
Alexander, "The Iconoclastic Council of St. Sophia (815) and its Definition (Horos)", p. 38.

67
 1 5 3
Nikephoros' prayers and consent with a view to assuming power." As it

shortly became evident, the climate in Constantinople changed quite

dramatically for the iconodules. The biographer of Methodios speaks in

general terms of a persecution of iconodules and the physical actions taken

against images in the capital. The phrase used to describe the setting at

that time in Constantinople is "the deepest darkest night of heresy of men

1 5 4
that hated and denied the economy of salvation of the Word of God."

The next event chronicled is the "resignation" of Patriarch Nikephoros,

which we know to have transpired in 815 because of pressure from Leo V.

1 5 5
Doens and her collaborators add an additional interesting point without

1 5 6
citation. They identify Methodios as the archdeacon of Nikephoros.

Therefore, his ordination and appointment to this office must have occurred

before 815, the date Leo deposed Nikephoros. As the vita continues, we

are then presented with Methodios being in a place of refuge in Rome,

157
described as an a c a d e m y . The evidence of persecutions coupled with

the known circumstances that are described in the vita indicates that an

exodus of iconodules occurred from Constantinople at this time. It is said

that iconodules fled to safe havens whether in Rome, or along the Black

Sea coast, or to "wander in the mountains or caves and holes in the earth."

Theophanes the Confessor, The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor, p.685.

1 5 4
P G , vol. c, col. 1245 d.: "\iixpic, "OTE Aomov 'p BaGeTa Kat OKOTEIVI^ vui; Tfjg alpf'oEwi; T U V
(iiaouvTwv Kai dpvounEVwv TOU © E O U Adyou oiKovo(i(av."
155
Scriptor I nee rt us de Leone Armeno, P.G. cvii. col. 1033 sqq.
1 5 6
Doens, I. and Hannick, C . (1973) "Das periorismos-dekret des Patriarchen Methodios I. Gegen
die studiten Naukratios und Athanasios", Jahrbuch der Osterreichischen Byzantinistik (JOB), Band
22,, pp.93-102. p. 93. Also s e e Pargoire, J . (1903) "Saint Methode de Constantinople avant 821",
Echos d' Orient, vol. 6, p p . 126 - 131, p. 129.
1 5 7
P G , vol. c, col 1248 a.: " T O T E ydp Aoinov TOU <t>pov-rioTTipi'ou t^dpac, TI^V Puur)v.."

68
 It was indeed plausible that Nikephoros dispatched the Sicilian born

Methodios, his archdeacon, with some type of correspondence to the Pope

concerning the conditions in Constantinople. Methodios' background would

have allowed him to be an effective envoy to Rome. The other supposition

that can be made, without too big a jump from known to unknown, is that

Methodios was cloistered behind the walls of the Monastery of St Sabbas,

the Greek Monastery on the outskirts of Rome. The epistle of Theodore the

Studite to Basil, Abbot of St. Sabbas, confirms that a Methodios was

1 5 9
resident at the monastery. We know that Theodore the Studite was also

in correspondence with Pope Paschal I, as well as others concerning the

crisis of faith within the empire. There are two letters from Theodore to

Paschal appealing to him as the senior shepherd of the Church to intervene

in the heresy, to stop the abuses, the violence against the iconodules and

1 6 0
to restore orthodoxy. The timing of these events is in dispute. As

outlined above, it is very clear in the vita, that Methodios left Constantinople

after Leo V's re-institution of iconoclasm. Therefore, it could not have

1 6 1
occurred before March, 815.

There are conflicting versions that chronicle this series of events. Pargoire

analyses this chronology quite thoroughly. He presents the opinions of

P G , vol. C, col. 1248 a. : "..Kai rrdvTEc; o l TOU dpGoG SdyjiaToi; ( i E T a v d a T E i xa( <|)uyd5£<; K a i
dAfjTai ycye'vrivTai, EV "opeai K a i amiAaiot<; K a i laic, dnaTg Tfjq yfjg auyKAeCouEva.."
1 5 9
Fatouros (ed.) Theodori Studitae Epistulae in two vols., vol. II epistle 274: " "aAA" oOv 5 i d T E
Tfjg oiKEfag E^Tjyoptag K a i TfjQ TOU Itpou ME0O6I'OU duoO K a i TOO 6£o<|>iA£aTdTou E i u o K d n o u
MovoBao(ag.."
1 6 0
Ibid., vol. II, epistle 271: " " A K O U E , dnoaToAiKri Kdpa, 0£onpdBAr)T£ noiui^v T<DV XpiaToO
TipoBdT(i)v,.."£X£i? TO iaxuEiv trapd GEO) EK TOO rrdvTuv trpuiTEOEiv EV <? Kai li£Qr\q. IlTorjaov,
5Ed(i£0a, TOOC, alpETiKoOi; Gfjpai; a u p i y y i TOU GEIOU Adyou aoir 6 noi(ir|v 6 KaAdg, Qiq ir\v
i|)uxr)v OTTEP T U V XpioToO TrpopdToiv."
1 6 1
P G , vol. c, col. 1248 a.: " . . K a i KaGuPpid;dvTwv d K d v a TT\V O(KOUU£VTIV KOTEAOPEV, 6 T I UTIO
TI^V paaiA(5a, dy£ d y i w T a T o g naTptdpxriQ NiKri(|>dpoi;".

69
Mgr. di Brolo that Methodios left Constantinople earlier than 815, in fact as
1 6 2
early as 811. Pargoire continues in his examination of the conflict of

dates. He cites that in his opinion additional confirmation for the 815 date

can be found in the letter of the Studite to Methodios and Bishop John of
1 6 3
Monemvasia. The chronicles of Genesius, Cedrenus, Zonaras and

Glycas each support the role of Methodios as an envoy, which is

demonstrated by referencing the contemporary letters of Theodore. This

period of exile was marked by a noteworthy ordeal. This is the miraculous

intervention of St. Peter to heal "the fires of passion" within Methodios. This

occurred as Methodios slept by the tomb of St. Peter in the Vatican. After

many supplications to be relieved of the urgings of the flesh, St. Peter

visited him and rendered him incapable of carnal pleasures. Methodios

1 6 4
awoke in anguish from the pain of a burn. This intervention in

Methodios' life would be a significant factor in a future conflict during his

patriarchal years. An article by Canart describes Methodios' activity as a

1 6 5
copyist during his sojourn in Rome. The details of Canart's findings will

be examined in the section dealing with the works of Methodios.

Pargoire, "Saint Methode de Constantinople avant 8 2 1 " , p. 1 2 7 - 1 2 8 ; Pargoire states that it is

not probable (vraisemblable) that Methodios left his monastery in Bithynia before (avant) 8 1 5 .
1 6 3
Fatouros (ed.) Theodori Studitae Epistulae in two vols., vol. ii, epistle 2 7 4 .
1 8 4
P G , vol. c, col. 1 2 6 1 a.:" i3 Tfj<; ntTpou 6rjKT)<; GepcmEUTa, KCti TOO EKETGEV dyiaanoO Tfjq
dyv(a? 0r)aaupo<))u^a^!" Also s e e Pargoire, "Saint Methode de Constantinople avant 8 2 1 " , p. 1 3 0 .
, 6 5
Canart, P. ( 1 9 7 9 ) "Le Patriarche Methode de Constantinople Copiste a Rome",
Palaeographica Diplomatics et Archivistica - Studi in onore di Giulio Battelli, pp. 3 4 3 - 3 5 4 .

70
 Wall of Greek. Byzantium
W a l l of Constantine, 330 A.D.
D o u b l e w a l l o f T h e o d o s i o s II, 4Q8-450AD.
W a l l of M a n u e l Comnenos
W a l l of Medieval Galata
Monasteries and C h u r c h e s
Regions of the City
PHAROS

TA PIKAIDIOU

BlMchernae/\\\ \

1 Chor&

Gate of Charisios

EUTERON i Church ofS.S.Plrttr£fiKil.

Church STKAI
fiinjepopies V
D,A}VU OA LATA

V PIHPTOM
Holy Apostles JBospor u s
TA flltlCHOU rtha TA
TA LI60J
4
KAPITOUON *&s..C Theodore\ X , \ a" ,-?v STSATKKW /jaw/urn
H
Polunnclriou. TA KYROU
\ ^M'ESOMPMAU* v "> <<"r";"^A y^T 7/ life
AMASTRIAHONV y & WILAPHJttlOM \ Diofont J h \ t
TA A N T E M W V
Forum, St.Ocsrm
Cistern fauns Column
SMOCA
Arch of,—
Silymbria. PARA XO
tl LOPHOf Theodoiios' *
"v Forum
Forum.
S.Andreae
cnKrltti
^sr
^
Arcddios/ TA KAKARKM
KONTOKAUON c~>t

OiureAif O
t UWOlt
: Meutkeritv
^\S*U of
Xuloktror

touStoudtou

6*te of QolcL

clextfions above sea level oire shown iu contour lines

*t JO meter intervals (32.80feet J

Figure 4: - Map of Constantinople

71
 Methodios the Confessor

The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church defines a confessor for the

faith as "one who suffered for confessing his or her faith, but only to the
1 6 6
extent which did not involve martyrdom." Methodios was a model of an

iconodulic confessor. There are three traditions, which tell the story of the

sufferings of the monk. The most accepted chronology will be explored

first. This is the vita account of Methodios and his encounters of torture at
1 6 7
the hands of two different emperors. The following known dates help to

develop a probable an idea of the timing of events; Paschal's pontificate ran

from 817 to 824, Leo's assassination occurred on Christmas day 820,

Michael ll's reign (820-829) and the patriarchal appointment of Antonios in

January, 821. Therefore, Treadgold places the encounter between

1 6 8
Methodios and the Emperor Michael II, the Stammerer, around 821.

This chronology appears very reasonable. The vita states that Methodios

conveyed to the new emperor a letter from Pope Paschal expressing the

Papal admonition to restore icons, orthodoxy and the deposed Patriarch

1 6 9
Nikephoros. Treadgold uses these words to describe this encounter.

Instead, Methodios found that Michael considered

his mission to be not merely foreign interference in
Byzantine affairs, but positively disloyal, since as a
1 7 0
Sicilian, Methodios was an imperial subject.

C r o s s and Livingstone (eds.) The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, p.330.

P G , vol. c, col. 1248 c.

Treadgold, The Byzantine Revival (780-842), pp. 233 - 234.

P G , vol. c, col. 1248 e.

Treadgold, The Byzantine Revival (780-842), p. 234

72
The vita also contrasts the sweetness of the words of orthodoxy and the

angelic eloquence of Methodios with the harsh and difficult speech of the
171
emperor. As a result, Methodios suffered one of two episodes of severe

treatment at the hands of imperial justice. Methodios was severely flogged

with "seven hundred" lashes until the young envoy was quite near death.

Then, the emperor banished Methodios to solitary confinement in a tomb-

like cell that barely allowed room enough to breathe. This imprisonment

took place on the small Isle of St. Andreas in the Gulf of Nicomedia near

Constantinople. The vita describes his ordeal in this manner.

And all about him was forgotten, in every way. He

suffered from the repeated blows and beatings, the
lack of medical care, the judgement of boorish men
and worse. Because of the narrowness of the
tomb and the dim light he approached
blindness...he refused to be of sad countenance or
to betray Christ... the baking he received formed
172
in his struggle, a man like clay...

According to the record Methodios was imprisoned about nine years. It

does appear that his treatment was less severe at times, because we know

that he composed some of his writings during that time of imprisonment and

was occasionally allowed contact with other iconoclastic prisoners.

1 7 1
P G , vol. C, col. 1248 C . * 0 S E TOUQ \iiv 7o\iouc, Se^diiEvoc;, uiq IOTOV dpdxvr) ^ a u A i a E v ,
a u T o v 8E T a Tfjq dpSoSd^ou TTIOTEUX; Tpavwg xai TTappr|aiao|i£voi; 6iayy^AXovTa.."
1 7 2
P G , vol. c, cols. 1248-1249 d, a.

73
Notwithstanding, towards the end of his confinement, he is described in his

vita as "having the stigmata of Christ's Passion on his body, having lost all

of his hair and being close to death." The biographer then praises the pious
1 7 3
zeal of the confessor and his ascetic martyrdom for Christ. The vita then

records the ascension of Theophilos to the imperial dignity. As the

narrative continues there is a description of the general persecution of

iconodules, which does not abate under Theophilos. A curious factor is

inserted in the vita at this point. Theophilos' behaviour is somehow

1 7 4
"explained" or at least rationalised by his excessive drinking. This

attempt to diminish culpability on Theophilos may very well be an attempt to

begin to rehabilitate his image. As shall be shown, the Empress Theodora

seriously promoted this effort at the time of her husband's death.

Methodios, the haggard confessor, was then moved to a detention area

beneath the palace. Once again, an inquisitor questioned him first, and

then the Emperor Theophilos took up the interrogation. Since Theophilos

1 7 5
did not ascend to the throne until Michael's death on 2 October 829, this

encounter would have occurred after this date. There are two very

interesting insights to gain from the record we have of this encounter. The

phrases and adjectives used by the author of the vita to describe the

emperor are less than complimentary. Theophilos is characterised as being

1 7 6
"lover of foreigners, and a snake". The writer gives a word-by-word

1 7 3
P G , vol. c, col. 1249 c. This identification with the sufferings of Christ is also a characteristic of
this genre of writing.
1 7 4
PG, vol. c , col. 1249 d.: ""EKTTOUCI TTETIWKOTO? tig | ! E 6 T I V "

1 7 5
Grierson, P. (1962) "The Tombs and Obits of the Byzantine Emperors", DOP, vol. 16, pp. 1-
63.
1 7 6
P G , vol. c, col. 1249 d.: " eQvo^i'Aou,... T<V 'otyei 6 TOU XpioToO "apioreOi;."

74
dialogue between Methodios and Theophilos that is worthy of closer

examination.

Theophilos speaks 'Oh Methodios, when are you

going to stop! The starvation you submitted to in
your inopportune obstinacy, yet you still hold the
same agitated opinions against the good order.
Why? What characteristic of your nature [causes
this]? What really cheap grace, the so-called
images? You filled the entire world with confusion.
You even involved the Pope of Rome, and thus
sending my father over the edge.'

Methodios responds 'Anyone of us that cheapens

the holy images with their words without a dignified
reason, is not worthy of the Imperium of Rome
[meaning Byzantium the Eastern Roman Empire].
Is it not condescension to wipe away the image of
God! Is it not the same Christ who we honour,
praise and follow to this very day. Oh, surely
1 7 7
show us the reason and will we not say so?'

Once again, Methodios was stripped to his waist and flogged. The

biographer describes, in detail, the great amount of blood loss and the

weakened condition of Methodios, which resulted from his punishment.

Before continuing with the narrative, perhaps some observations are in

order. The emperor seemed to focus on two themes, first Methodios'

arrogant intransigence and the involvement of the Pope in these affairs, for

which Theophilos blames Methodios. It appears the aim of Theophilos'

, 7 7
P G , vol. c, cols. 1249 d - 1251 a.

75
criticism was to have Methodios bend to the imperial will. On the other

hand, Methodios gave a theological answer in defence of images while

denying the emperor's right to determine theology. Yet, another conclusion

can be drawn from the description of Theophilos. At the time of the vita, in

the eyes of iconophiles, Theophilos was still very much the villain. In his

book, The Byzantine Revival Treadgold does put quite a different spin on

this episode. This point of view is worth examining.

Theophilos learned late in 831 that iconophiles

were circulating a pamphlet predicting his imminent
death. Treating the matter as a conspiracy, he
administered a beating to the monk Methodios,
who had probably written the pamphlet, and to the
1 7 8
deposed bishop Euthymios of Sardis, who died
of his wounds. Henceforth Theophilos regarded
1 7 9
iconophiles with open hostility.

The relationship of these two men is a very complex topic. It will be

examined later in the discussion and in relation to the events leading to the

Sunday of Orthodoxy and the text of the Synodicon. The vita states that

Methodios was imprisoned under the palace. He received medicinal

ointment on his wounds delivered by an unknown person. Then he was

secretly guided out of the dungeon again by this same "unknown friend of

Christ" and taken to hospital. The life documents that Theophilos, in

1 7 8
Euthymios of Sardis is the subject of one of the Vitae written by Methodios, s e e Gouillard, J .
( 1 9 8 7 ) " L a Vie D'Euthyme De Sardes (+831) une oeuvre du patriarche Methode", Travaux et
Memoires, vol.10, pp: 1 - 1 0 1 . It will be examined more closely in the sections on works of
Methodios.
1 7 9
Treadgold, A History of the Byzantine State and Society, p. 4 3 7 , s e e note 9 , Treadgold cites
himself and Gouillard.

76
retribution, confiscated all the property of the physician, who treated
180
Methodios. The second account of Methodios' sufferings is recounted in

the Annales of Symeon Magister. In this account, there are significant

differences from the vita. The primary variances are as follows:

The torture all took place under the Emperor

Theophilos. The imprisonment lasted seven years
was on the Island of Antigone. It entailed a very
narrow tomb like cell shared with two criminals one
181
of whom was dead. The treatment Methodios
received included the extraction of his teeth and
1 8 2
the crushing of his mandible.

The monastic and natural brothers Theodore and

Theophanes Graptoi feature prominently in the
scenario, as do poetic verses exchanged with
Methodios.

There are incidents of miracles in prison

concerning oil for Methodios' lamp, which
1 8 3
replenished itself.

The third account of the sufferings of Methodios can be found in the

1 8 4
chronicles of Cedrenus and Zonaras. There appears to be a blend of

two experiences. The torture does start under Michael but is more severe

under Theophilos. There is an account of correspondence of Methodios

P G , vol. c, col. 1252 b.: "NUKTOQ 5E KaTaAapouoriQ, uird TIVIUV dvaXTi^Geiq <t>iAoxp(0T(Dv, K a i
GEpauEfac, d^iwGEig, aijToq \itv d v a p p w a E w q "ETTIXEV, 6 bi TOOTOV 0EoiJ)iArjg TEGEpantuKiJQ OIKOI;,
5iiji£uaEi TTCTVTEAET I3ITO TOU niaoxpi'crrou Kai AuaaTflpoc; Tupdvou KcrraSiKd^ETai.".
1 8 1
Annales Symeon Magister, P G vol. cix, col. 705 a.: "TOV tva T<3V Aiioruiv ' E K E T O E dnoGavETv"
1 8 2
Annales Symeon Magister, P G vol. cix, col. 705 a.: "T<3V dSdvTwv EKpi^waiv..aiaydvwv
GAdaiv"
1 8 3
Annales Symeon Magister, P G vol. cix, cols. 704 - 705, also s e e Pargoire, J . (1903) "Saint
Methode et la persecution", Echos d' Orient, vol. 6, pp. 183 - 191, p. 184.
1 8 4
Bekker (ed.) Chronicle of Georgios Cedrenus. and Zonaras, I. (1868) "Annales - J , Zonarae -
Epitome historiarum 6 vols, in v. 1-2, in P G , vol. cxxxiv, ed. J.-P.Migne, Paris.

77
 185
and the Graptoi Brothers. Describing the effects of this treatment on the

rest of Methodios' life, this account has come down to us from Marin, the

French researcher:

Even though his lips had been mutilated by the hot

irons of the iconoclasts and though he was forced
to wrap his jaws with strips of white cloth during
public functions, Methodius retained enough spirit
and voice to dictate his hymns and speeches which
were always feared by the enemies of images. In
fact, the white pieces of cloth used by Methodius
became the marks and ornaments of his
1 8 6
successors' pontificates.

The vita then relates the "turning about of Theophilos' thinking"; it is inferred

that Theophilos began to admire Methodios as a man of courage and

fortitude and that around this time that Methodios was returned from his

island imprisonment to Constantinople. Methodios' quick and able mind

could have been the other character trait, which appealed to the young

emperor. Methodios' ability to debate may have challenged Theophilos,

who was a scholar and was educated by his tutor the learned iconoclast

John the Grammarian. When the emperor's keen interest in learning is

considered, his interest in debate is understandable. Nonetheless, the

Zonaras Annales - J , Zonarae - "Epitome historiarum 6 vols." in v.1-2, in P G col. 1409. Also
s e e Cunningham, The Life of Michael the Synkellos, - Text, Translation and Commentary, pp. 98 -
99, then pp. 160 - 161, note 167.
1 8 6
Marin, E . (1897) Les moines de Constantinople depuis la foundation de la ville jusqu a la mort
de Photius (330 - 898) (Leoffre), Paris, p. 360; cited in Sendler, E . (1981) The Icon: Image of the
Invisible (L lcone: Image de invisible), English, trans. - S . Bigham (1988) (Editions Desclee De
Brouver - Oakwood Publications), Paris, p. 33, [see figure 8: - Methodios the Confessor].

78
biographer relates that Methodios was brought into the palace to discuss

and debate points of Scripture with Theophilos. The Vita does not say how

Methodios was transformed from a prisoner to a person welcomed in the

palace, but what is revealed about these episodes is the demeanour of

Methodios, especially in relationship to the servants of the imperial

household. He is said to have spoken in a soft and gentle manner, always

speaking of the teachings of the orthodox. This was quite a different man

from the one, who had been described to them, and because of his

demeanour and faith he converted many of them [the servants] to the

orthodox side.

Emperor Theophilos died in 842, within a year of ascending the throne,

Theodora deposed the iconoclastic Patriarch John the Grammarian. She

secured the election of the iconodulic confessor Methodios, a moderate, to

the patriarchal dignity and all of Constantinople prepared to process to the

Great Church to proclaim the Triumph of Orthodoxy. This set the stage for

the entry of Methodios of Syracusa, as the new Patriarch. Methodios was

elected Patriarch of Constantinople. The issues that confronted the new

Patriarch were significant. The re-integration of the iconoclasts and

establishing peace within the Church would prove a daunting task. Four

years after his elevation as Patriarch, on 14 June 847, his life shortened by

his sufferings as a Confessor, Methodios of Constantinople died having

secured orthodoxy and the place of images in the Church. The unfolding of

his life and the Patriarchal years including the triumphs and conflicts that

ensued will constitute the balance of this account.

79
Sophia Cathedral as it probably was on the First Sunday of Orthodoxy

80
 Chapter Two

THE TRIUMPH OF ORTHODOXY

The word "triumph" is defined as gaining victory or success, to win

1
mastery. Methodios entered his years as Patriarch in this spirit. However,

this joyful interlude was to be a deceiving pause in a struggle to win a

permanent victory. He was a man of strength and his character influenced

much of the structure of the iconodules' final achievement. His attitudes

and passions are reflected in his compositions, which will be examined and

analysed in this chapter and later ones. Ultimately, Methodios' legacy will

prove to be a significant milestone in the history of Orthodoxy.

The year interval between Theophilos' death, and the deposing of John the

Grammarian followed by the immediate ascension of the Methodios, as the

new patriarch, needs further examination. What factors led to Methodios'

election? As Theodora examined the candidates, what were her options?

No doubt, she was committed to choose a dedicated and proven iconodule.

She most probably wished to choose a monastic, in order to seek harmony

2
in the empire. This is evident in some of the reliable contemporary

sources. The Vitae of Sts. David, Symeon, George of Lesbos, and St.

Michael the Synkellos each specifically refer to the ultimate selection of

Methodios from among other monastic candidates for patriarch. For

1
Neufeldt, V. (ed.) (1989) Webster's New World Dictionary of American English (Webster's New
World), Cleveland / New York, p. 1432.
2
Talbot (ed.) Byzantine Defenders of Images • Eight Saints in English Translation, Lives of S t s .
David, Symeon, and George, trans D. Domingo-Foraste, p. 221, s e e note 388.

81
example, Symeon answered in this way, when asked for his guidance in the

choice for a Patriarch:

To me, all holy and God-gathered congregation, it

seems that no one exceeds in honour the
confessor, father Methodios, both in wisdom and
the excellence of his virtue and his good deeds on
behalf of piety. That is how it seems to me,
3
brothers, but express frankly your opinion.

The Vita of loannikios expresses his prophetic utterances on this matter

when asked by Eustratios, "a most devout man." Eustratios asked

loannikios the outcome of iconoclasm and the identity of the next Patriarch

to "steer the rudder of the Church." loannikios answered that iconoclasm

was on its last leg and added,

O Eustratios, they labour in vain who think it is fit

to mention the aforementioned Studites and their
4
colleague, John. But if indeed they should vote
for Methodios, who is poor in spirit and most meek,
in the words of the divine David, they will cry out
5
this <name> with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

In the Vita of Michael the Synkellos, we read that the selection of Methodios

occurred within the structure of a council of iconodules, both monastics and

3
Ibid., Lives of S t s . David, Symeon, and George, trans D. Domingo-Foraste, p. 222.
4
This refers to Naukratios and Athanasios, Studite monastic leaders after Theodore's death.
Also, the prediction of future problems Methodios would encounter from this camp during his
patriarchate, as to John Katasambas s e e note 4 9 9 in the reference below, Vita of loannikios.
5
Talbot (ed.) Byzantine Defenders of Images - Eight Saints in English Translation, Life of St.
loannikios, by Peter the Monk, trans, by D. Sullivan, p. 3 3 9 .

82
 6
confessors of the faith. It is stated that even though they wished "to hand

the helm of the church" to the pious Michael, he refused owing to his "great

humility". The account continues to relate that the blessed loannikios

7
guided the selection by naming Methodios as the best choice for patriarch.

These accounts, interesting as they are, do lead us to another of

Theodora's primary motivations, the "rehabilitation" of Theophilos, her

husband. Her rationale can only be surmised; perhaps she wished this for

the sake of her son, the young emperor and the reputation of the dynasty,
8
which would be damaged by an anathema of Theophilos. On the other

hand, she may have genuinely wished to gain absolution for Theophilos'

sins. It has been suggested, she desired to exercise the power of the state

in the choice of Patriarch by imposing a precondition on the candidates or

9
that it was her wish to politicise the appointment. What is established, in

her vita, the Vita of St. Symeon and in the work De Theophili Imperatoris
10
Absolutione; is that her great desire was to prevent Theophilos from being

publicly anathematised.

This reference is to the synod of the Kanekleiou Palace (perhaps the Council of Blachernae),
s e e below.
7
Cunningham, The Life of Michael the Synkellos - Text, Translation and Commentary, pp. 102 -
104.
8
Gouillard, J . (1967) "Le Synodikon d'Orthodoxie: edition et commentaire", Travaux et Memoires,
vol. 2, pp. 1 - 316., p. 125, Gouillard states that the Emperors were not condemned after the Sixth
Council or after the Seventh so why should Theophilos have been anathematised. Cf Afinogenov,
D. (1997) "KflNZTANTINOYnOAIZ E n i X K O n O N E X E I : Part II - From the Second Outbreak of
Iconoclasm to the Death of Methodios", Erytheia, 17, pp. 4 3 - 7 1 . P. 59 disagrees stating that
anathemas were possible.
9
Karlin-Hayter, "Gregory of Syracuse, Ignatios and Photios", p. 141. Cf. Afinogenov
"KQNZTANTlNOYnoAIE E m i K o n o N E X E I : Part II - From the Second Outbreak of Iconoclasm to
the Death of Methodios", p 58 - 59, for a different view.
1 0
Regel, W. (ed.) (1891) De Theophili imperatoris absolutione - in Analecta Byzantino-Russica
(Eggers & S . I. Glasunof), Petrograd.

83
The story of Theophilos' absolution is recounted in two traditions. The Vita

of Theodora presents the story in the following manner. Importantly, the

events occur before Theophilos' death. Depicted on his deathbed, in

torment, the emperor is dying a death of agony, caused by his sins against

images.

Then, she dozed off for a while and saw the

supremely holy Mother of God holding in her arms
the infant <Christ> with His cross and a terrifying
ring of beautiful angels violently reproaching the
emperor Theophilos who babbled, tossing his head
endlessly from one side to the other and saying
over and over in his anguish, "Woe is me, wretch
that I am! Because of the icons I am being beaten,
11
because of the icons I am being flogged."

After hours of suffering, Theophilos venerates an eyKOAmov worn by

12
Theoktistos.

[Theophilos] drew it to his lips. Well, when the

necklace, that bore, as was said, the holy and
venerable image of our Saviour and God, had been
put to his lips and mouth, suddenly - what an

, 1
Talbot (ed.) Byzantine Defenders of Images - Eight Saints in English Translation, Vita of
Theodora the Empress, trans. M. P. Vinson, p. 372.
1 2
Theoktistos w a s the eunuch KavixAeioq "keeper of imperial ink", the red ink by which the
emperor signed official documents. His office and responsibilities would be equivalent to that of
Foreign Minister. S e e Ibid., note 68 on p. 372, footnote 187.

84
 unexpected miracle! - Those lips of his that had
gaped wide apart, the ones that had debased the
teachings of the Church and babbled a lot of
nonsense against the holy and venerable images,
1 3
came together and were closed.

This description continues stating that instantly the emperor found

tranquillity, his distress ceased and "in a few days he died peacefully". The

inference is that Theophilos' late veneration of icons allowed him to be

reconciled with God and to gain forgiveness for his persecution of holy

images and their supporters.

The second account of the absolution of Theophilos has several variances

to the description above. The most apparent and striking is the timing of

the absolution. This version is set at a time after the death of Theophilos.

There is recounted before the election of Methodios, a "consultation" of

several eminent monastic leaders. Theodora asks the Venerable

loannikios, Arsakios and Isaiah, their opinion on who would best fill the
1 4
patriarchal throne. Each, in turn, recommends Methodios. After the

selection of Methodios as Patriarch, Theodora passionately and tearfully

pleads with Methodios on behalf of Theophilos' soul.

In order that you ask and prevail upon the merciful

1 3
Talbot (ed.) Byzantine Defenders of Images - Eight Saints in English Translation, p. 372.
1 4
Regel (ed.) De Theophili imperatoris absolutione, - in Analecta Byzantino-Russica, pp. 24-25.

85
 and philanthropic God on behalf of Theophilos my
spouse O, Lord God forgive [Theophilos] all his
transgression and especially those that he held
15
against the holy and august i m a g e s .

Methodios respectfully responds that he does not possess the authority to

1 6
forgive Theophilos. This power comes only "from prayer and fasting."

Theodora retires to her palace to spend the first week of Great Lent in

supplication and fasting on behalf of the soul of her husband. The next

scene in this drama involves another dream sequence. Theodora sees

Theophilos seated naked, before the icon of Christ on the Bronze Gate.

Theophilos' hands are bound behind him and he is being tortured. Then

Christ speaks to Theodora

O, Woman, great is your faith. Be of good cheer!

Because of your tears and your faith, more even on
account of your supplication and entreaties, I give
1 7
my holy forgiveness to Theophilos, your husband

1 8
Theophilos is saved from damnation by the tears and faith of Theodora.

The forgiveness of Theophilos is confirmed to Methodios in two ways. In

1 5
Regel, W. (ed.) (1891) Vita Theodorae imperatricis - in Analecta Byzantino-Russica (Eggers &
S . I. Glasunof), Petrograd., p. 30: " ."iva 5ci]8fjT£ Kai EKfiuawmfaTiTE T O V eAErjuova Kai
<|>iAdv8pwTTov 0 E 6 V nepi 0£O<|)iAou T O U E U O U auvtuvou, "onwc. ouyxupijai] auTdv Kupioi; 6 Qeoq
Td nAimiicAijiiaTa adTou ndvTa Kai jidAiaTa "oaa tic, idc, dyiac, Kai atmdi; EiKdvag rjvd^rjaEv. "
1 6
Reference to the healing of the epileptic boy; s e e Mt. Chapter 17 and Mk. Chapter 9.
1 7
Regel (ed.) Vita Theodorae imperatricis, - in Analecta Byzantino-Russica, pp. 33 - 35: « w
yuvai, \ieyd)iT] aou n(aTi5'"unayE 5id i a 5dKpud oou Kai T I ^ V T T I O T I V aou, "ETI5 E Kai 5id TI^V
napaKAriaiv Kai 'iKEaiav TWV lepeuv \iou auyyvwjir|v 5iSwm 0Eo<|)iAw TOJ dv5p( aou » the
reference "woman great is your faith" s e e Mt. 15, 28.
1 8
Maguire, H. (ed.) (1997) Byzantine Court Culture from 829 • 1204, (Dumbarton O a k s Research
Library), Washington, D.C., pp. 250 - 251, (note 14), cites Mango Brazen House.

86
the context of a dream, angels inform the patriarch that God has forgiven

the dead emperor. Miraculously, Theophilos' name disappears from the list

of the anathemas, which Methodios had composed preparing for the

ceremony celebrating the Sunday of Orthodoxy, thereby verifying the

1 9
absolution. Whether these endeavours were successful is problematic,

since, as we have previously noted, the Vita of Methodios, written shortly

after his death, still labels Theophilos, an arch-villain and an iconoclast.

Can we ascertain Methodios' thinking and actions during the interim

between Theophilos' death and the patriarchal election? We do know that

he spent this period within the palace inner circle, this is borne out when

one sees the company of high officials of the court associated with

Methodios

And the men of God, George [of Lesbos] and

Methodios, took along Sergios Niketiates,
Theoktistos, Bardas, and Petronas very orthodox
men and leaders of the senate and did not
incessantly begging and imploring Symeon to
2 0
assent to the Augusta's request..."

Contemplating the issues at hand must have been quite a daunting task.

The form and structure of the Sunday of Orthodoxy Service, including The

1 9
Ibid., p. 37. The irony to note is that no emperor is singled out by name in the text of the
Synodicon.
2 0
Talbot (ed.) Byzantine Defenders of Images - Eight Saints in English Translation, pp. 216 - 217
and Mango, "Liquidation of Iconoclasm and Patriarch Photios." in Iconoclasm, p. 134. As was
shown earlier two of these men were related to Theodora.

87
 2 1
Synodicon and the Aicrrd^ai (Rulings and Rubrics) for the "reception of

lapsed Christians" appear to have been completely or partially written or

2 2
compiled during this time. This formulation of a policy to receive the

hierarchs, the lower clergy and laity back into the good graces of the

Church had to be delineated and prepared to be implemented. What would

guide the new patriarch on this crucial matter? It is my contention that

there are two very concrete indications of the mind-set of Methodios. First,

the issue of the reception of the lapsed clergy was a topic dealt with at

length by the Council of Nicaea II and was a sensitive point during those

deliberations. Another reasonable assumption concerning this period is

that it was used to a s s e s s the sitting hierarchs and their orthodoxy. Owing

to the sheer numbers involved, this would have been a very time consuming

undertaking. The number of bishops and monastics who had slipped back

into heresy during the second phase of iconoclasm, under Leo V, was

2 3
substantial.

The guidance and moderation exhibited by Tarasios, Nikephoros and the

other fathers of the Second Council of Nicaea must have affected

2 1
Hussey, The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire, p. 65. Hussey cites Gouillard stating
the majority of the Synodicon w a s written for the first anniversary of the celebration. My question
would be what celebration was used in 843? In examining the Synodicon, we will note that it is a
composite service using much of the text of the Seventh Ecumenical Council Horos. My belief is
that this earlier service formed the framework for subsequent commemorations.
2 2
Note: it is evident that Methodios compiled earlier Patristic material a s the basis for the
Diataxai. This synthesis and adoption of earlier sources would also have required some thought
and time. S e e Arranz, M. (1990) " L a « D i a t a x i s » du patriarche Methode pour la reconciliation des
Apostats", Orientalia Christiana Periodica, vol. 56 - no. II, pp. 283 - 322, to be discussed at some
length later.
2 3
Fatouros (ed.) Theodori Studitae Epistulae in two vols., Ep. 112 ad Euthymios of Sardis.
Theodore names the Bishops of Smyrna, Cherson, the abbots of Chrysopolitis, Dios, Chora.
Theodore continues to state that a majority of the abbots of Constantinople and Bithynia
succumbed to the heresy.

88
Methodios' thinking. After all, the entire thrust of the victory was to

vindicate their proceedings and re-apply their Horos. At Nicaea II, some

injunctions were imposed on the returning clergy, but when viewed,

retrospectively, in 843, these sanctions were quite tolerant. The clergy and

bishops were required to recant publicly and repent their apostasy. In

addition, Canons One and Two of the Second Nicaean Council, called for

all signatories of the canons to accept of the rulings of all previous

Councils, whether Ecumenical or local, as inspired by the Holy Spirit and

binding upon them, personally. Future candidates for bishop were required

to sign their acceptance of all the rulings of the Councils thus ensuring their

2 4
Orthodoxy. After fulfilling all the above prerequisites, the lapsed clergy

were welcomed back into the Church. Regardless of his wish to be the

inheritor of Tarasios and his mentor, Nikephoros, Methodios was obligated

to take into consideration the fact that, in spite of these provisions, large

numbers of hierarchs, monastics and clergy slipped back into heresy during

the second phase of iconoclasm. Steps needed to be taken to ensure this

deception was not repeated.

2 4
Percival (ed.) A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church
The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church, vol. 14, pp. 555 - 556.

89
 p A N NON 1 A THE BALKAN PENINSULA
100 miles
iscia (Sisak) 100 2<w Am.
Cibalae
(Vincovd) 7f

Salona (Split)
onaJjSp
(

Uttr
t
Naissus.

M 0 E S I A
Stratca.
(Soft*)

J d r i a t i c
Phtllppopolis
Sea
T H R. A C E
"Tarentum ft
ft AmphipoHs

ApoU
H mm

Core
i>rcyra Larissa

THESSALY
Lesbos

Tncrmopy
I o n i a n
B0ET1A
ChJ

•Bis Cori
Zakinth
OPOKWESE

St A

MeJo

Figure 6: - Map of Balkan Peninsula

90
 The Synod of Election and The First Sunday of Orthodoxy

The Election of Methodios

Many aspects concerning the "...auvoSov Geiav KCU itpdv TOTTIK^V

2 5
auvo5ov, ev TOIQ KaviKAtiou," are not firmly established. In the

Synodicon Vetus, we find this is the entry.

When Theophilos, then, reached the end of his life

in blasphemy, his son Michael, along with his
mother Theodora, took over the Empire. These,
fired with the zeal of God, recalled the holy fathers
who were in exile, and having assembled a divine
and sacred local synod in the Kanikleiou, they
expelled the abominable John from the throne and
appointed Saint Methodios patriarch of
Constantinople. And accepting the seven sacred
Ecumenical Councils, they admirably restored to
the holy icons the reverence due to them from the
2 6
beginning.

First, the location of the synod is a point of dispute. The Synodicon Vetus

and many other authorities name the Kanikleiou Palace, home of

2 7
Theoktistos, but there is some indication that this was the location of a

pre-synodal meeting, while the actual synod location was The Church of St.

Duffy, J . and Parker, J . (1979) The Synodikon Vetus - text, translation and notes, Corpus
fontium historiae byzantinae (Dumbarton O a k s Texts V), Washington, D.C., p. 132: s e e note 200.
"...a divine and sacred local synod in the Canicleiou."
2 6
Ibid., p. 132, note 201 states that even the timing of Methodios' election is in dispute. Some
sources place it before the synod, the S.V. during the proceedings, and some afterwards. This will
be discussed more fully shortly.
2 7
Gouillard, "Le Synodikon d'Orthodoxie: edition et commentaire", pp. 125 ff.

91
Mary of Blachernae. The church was located in the northern part of the

capital near the Golden Horn, very close to the Kanikleiou Palace [see

2 8
figure 4]. The Vita of St. Michael the Synkellos comments differently

concerning the meeting location,

Theodora commanded that the whole ecclesiastical

body of spiritual combatants be assembled within a
2 9
certain separate chambers of the palace...

The discussions and chronology of this synod are also a bit of a mystery.

Again, our most lengthy description is found in the Vitae of Sts. David,

Symeon and George. The Vitae clearly indicate that Methodios led the

discussions, many iconoclasts were present and that "the force of his

3 0
[Methodios'] arguments from Scriptures dashed their points of view."

The vita places the end of the synodal discussions and the election of

3 1
Methodios on Saturday, 3 March 843. Methodios is described in the

Chronicle of loannis Scylites as "being a Confessor and Martyr, bearing the

signs of this [martyrdom] on his very flesh, always a pious priest and

3 2
layman of the monasteries." After the election, a procession with

Symeon at the lead, the monastics and Methodios, as the Patriarch-elect,

This is described in Codex Sinaiticus gr. 482, which I have not a s yet, been able to consult.
2 9
Cunningham, The Life of Michael the Synkellos - Text, Translation and Commentary, pp. 101-
103.
3 0
Talbot (ed.) Byzantine Defenders of Images - Eight Saints in English Translation, pp. 217 -
218.
3 1
Ibid., p. 222; also s e e Gouillard "Le Synodikon d'Orthodoxie: edition et commentaire", p. 127.
3 2
Thurn, I. (ed.) (1973) loannis Scylitzae Synopsis Historiarum (Walter de Gruyter et Socios),
Berolini et Novi Eboraci, p. 84.

92
paraded through the streets of Constantinople early the following morning

on Cheese Fare Sunday. The Vita of St. Symeon is specific with these

additional comments.

At dawn, he [Symeon] took that great phalanx of

people and they raised on high with their hands the
all-holy icon of our Lord and of the Mother of God
who bore Him and openly carried it through the
street in public <procession>; they gathered at the
church called by the all-glorious name of our
Saviour, Christ [Chora], and from there they made
known their arrival to the empress. She delayed
not at all but went down into the so-called
Magnaura and saw that angelic throng and learned
from Symeon <the name of> the bishop [patriarch]
who had been elected [Methodios]; and she ratified
their decision and ordered that they celebrate the
divine mystery in the church of God and invited
3 3
them to dine with her in the palace.

The next event, which can be documented from several sources, is the

removal of John the Grammarian from the Patriarchal Palace. The Vita of

Symeon states that John "went mad," faked an attack on his own person

3 4
and was exiled by the Empress.

Talbot (ed.) Byzantine Defenders of Images - Eight Saints in English Translation, pp. 222 -
224. This chronology dovetails with the "Absolution" in that Theodora could then have consulted
Methodios a s Patriarch-elect and spent the first week of Lent in prayer and fasting for Theophilos'
soul.
3 4
Ibid., pp. 224 - 225. S e e note 405 for references to variations of this story.

93
 The Commemoration of the Triumph of Orthodoxy:

The associated occurrences leading to the celebration are not the subject

of agreement. Fortescue writing in The Catholic Encyclopedia in 1911

3 5
places the date of the first Sunday of Orthodoxy as 19 February, 842.

This concept does not fits the scheme that modern researchers advocate.

The exact sequence of events and dates is not known. In an early article,

Treadgold states that 4 March, 843 was the date of the arrest of John the

3 6
Grammarian, and 11 March, 843 the date of Methodios' enthronement.

In his book, Treadgold cites 11 March, as the date of the local synod that

3 7
elected Methodios and deposed John. Since the customary procedure

was that a patriarch be enthroned on a Sunday or a major feast day, either

arrangement fits this tradition.

The timetable presented by Gouillard, Hussey and Morris seems to be the

most plausible. It is the account that fits with most contemporary sources of

the period. Therefore, this chronology will be utilised for this discussion.

These sources and others place Methodios' election on Saturday 3 March,

843. His elevation and enthronement was on Sunday, 11 March 843, this

being the date for the first Sunday of Orthodoxy. Alternatively, the

enthronement may have taken place on Cheese-Fare Sunday, 4 March 843

Fortescue, A. (ed.) (1911) The Catholic Encyclopedia, pp. 242 - 243.

3 6
Treadgold, W. (1979) "The Chronological Accuracy of the Chronicle of Symeon the Logothete
for the Years 813-845", DOP, vol. 33, pp. 159 - 197, p. 191. This citation 153 credits Grumel, La
Chronologie (note 24 supra).
3 7
Treadgold, A History of the Byzantine State and Society, p. 447.

94
meaning Methodios was Patriarch during that first week of Great Lent.

This would then allow the Triumph of Orthodoxy commemoration to be led

by an installed patriarch.

Regardless, whether Methodios was Patriarch or Patriarch-elect, a

description of the rite of the Sunday of the Triumph of Orthodoxy can be

3 9
determined from two sources, the Book of Ceremonies and The

40
Triodion. These ceremonies described in De Cerimoniis, The Book of

Ceremonies, outlined the practices used at the end of the tenth century in

this manner:

On the Saturday evening, the Patriarch goes to the

Church of the All-Holy Theotokos in Blachernae.
And with him are the metropolitans, archbishops
and bishops who happen to be in the City then, as
well as the clergy of the Great Church and of the
churches outside together with all those solitary
monastic life within the God-guarded city, and all
those who are to celebrate the midnight office in
4 1
the holy church.

This would synchronise with the description of Methodios a s Patriarch in The Absolution of
Theophilos.
3 9
Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, (1829 - 1830) De Ceremoniis - Aulae Byzantinae, C B , Bonn,
Bude and Paris, depicts the Sunday of Orthodoxy in the tenth century, but states "it is as it was
celebrated of old".
40
The Lenten Triodion (1977) trans. Mother Mary and Archimandrite Kallistos Ware (Faber and
Faber Ltd.), London. This is the Church book of the Lenten offices, from Greek meaning three
odes.
4 1
Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, De Ceremoniis - Aulae Byzantinae, C h . 28, pp. 156 ff., =
Vogt, vol. I, Book I, Chapter 37 pp. 145 ff.

95
On the next day, Sunday, the Book of Ceremonies summarises a

Patriarchal procession of clergy and monastics starting at Blachernae, with

candles and holy icons in hand, chanting Kupie ^Aeriaov. The

ecclesiastical procession then met an Imperial procession at the doors of

the Great Church [see figure: 4 for route of the procession and figure: 5 for

St. Sophia - "The Great Church"].

The Text of the Absolution of Theophilos notes an interesting variant on this

ceremonial order. It describes the first Sunday of Orthodoxy as follows,

...Uniting together with the Holy Patriarch, they

came together in litanies from the Holy Altar
following the Precious Cross and the Holy Gospel
they came down saying prayers unto what is called
the Royal Ktenarion. The chanted their earnest
prayers and after dark tearfully moaned Lord have
42
mercy.

Grabar comments on this passage in this way,

They [the clergy] process to the gate of the

Imperial Palace known as K-revapiwv. It is most
probable at the point that the Empress [and the
young Emperor] came to meet the Patriarch and
the clergy carrying- a s we have come to know- an

Regel (ed.) Vita Theodorae imperatricis - in Analecta Byzantino-Russica, p. 38: "..Kai

£vu>0£VTE5 Tif dyiwTtitTty TTcrrpidpxr] Kai AiTr]v d[ioO dndvTEg, dnd T O U dyfou Buoiaorripi'ou |i£Td
l v
T O U T I J I I ' O U crraupoO Kai T o o dyi'ou EuayytAi'ou KaTf)A9ov M T O V E U O V T E C ; (i£XP ™ PaaiAtKaiv
TTUAWV Ttliv KaAouuEvwv KTEvapi'wv. K a i 5r) E K T E V O U C ; Euxrji; y£von£vr|Q Kai \IEJCL KaTavu^Ewi; Kai
5aKpuwv TTOAAWV oTEvayjiuv T O ' K u p i E £A£r|aov.'

96
 Imperial Candle. This Gate KTEvotpi'wv or ('of the
comb') is not otherwise known to us; but the
indication, if precise, is revealed to us in this era by
a Vita of St Nicholas. We are aware of a street
existing of the same name in Constantinople which
was a street lined with boutiques of a particular
4 3
type of artisans.

The procession then proceeded in unison to the Great Church. The icons

4 4
of the Great Church were re-installed in their places. It appears that the

pattern for this procession could very well have been an earlier

demonstration in favour of images by the Studite monks, led by St.

Theodore. We read in Theodore's Vita of this procession of monks carrying

icons on high and chanting triumphant hymns to Christ Our Saviour. "We

venerate your Holy Icon, loving Lord, asking You to pardon our

4 5
transgressions..."

When the practice of two converging processions at the narthex doors of St.

Sophia's began is not clear, but it is definitely normative by the end of the

tenth century, since this is the description found in the Book of Ceremonies.

The other difference noted in the Liturgical portion of this ceremony is that

the sovereign does not enter the sanctuary to receive communion, as was

4 6
customary; but receives on the metatorion. . Two theories have been put

Grabar, A. (1984) L'lconoclasme Byzantin (Flammarion Press), Paris, p. 217, s e e notes 12 and
13.
4 4
Regel (ed.) Vita Theodorae imperatricis - in Analecta Byzantino-Russica, p. 39.
4 5
P G vol. 99, col. 185.
4 6
Constantino VII Porphyrogenitus, De Ceremoniis • Aulae Byzantinae, p. 147, lines 2 - 5.

97
forth as to why this took place on the Sunday of Orthodoxy. First, that this

downgrading of the imperial participation was a penitential expression of

the imperial role in the iconoclastic controversy. This visible lessening of

the sovereign's position projected the "power" of the Church in Church -

4 7
State relations. The second theory states because Theodora was the

sovereign at the time of first commemoration, she was not allowed to enter

4 8
the altar area because of her sex. The young emperor was much too

4 9
young to solely participate. Once the pattern was established it then

became the model for all subsequent observances. The theory which

centres on the battle of power between the Church and State as the most

probable reason for the ceremonial order is a favourite of many historians.

They view the details of the ceremony as reflecting a propagandistic

measure by the Church. Afinogenov believes that the most reasonable

rationale presented by the ceremonial form described by Vogt demonstrate

the "political" aspects of the service. Scholars who advocate purely a

political motivation to Methodios' actions find this a very seductive line of

so
reasoning.

An alternative opinion might be offered at this time; since an empress

without a husband was a rare circumstance in Byzantium and Theodora, as

a woman, would not normally be allowed in the altar area. Additionally, we

4 7
Ibid., pp. 1 6 2 - 164 also note pages in footnote 50 cited below.
4 8
Grabar, L'lconoclasme Byzantin, pp. 216 - 217; Gouillard supports this view, Synodicon p. 130,
s e e note 103.
4 9
Mango, C . (1967) "When was Michael III Born?" OOP, vol. 21, pp. 253 - 259, p.258. Professor
Mango argues quite convincingly that Michael III was born in early in January, 840.
5 0
Afinogenov, "KfiNXTANTINOYnOAII E m Z K O I I O N E X E I : Part II - From the Second Outbreak
of Iconoclasm to the Death of Methodios", pp. 60 - 62.

98
know the young Emperor Michael was little more than a toddler and he

could not participate without his mother. Methodios was cognisant of this

and the liturgical restrictions on Theodora. He was also aware that a great

number of monks were attending that day from both inside and outside the

city.

...And men [monks] came down from mount

Olympos, from Athos, and Ida, even the
congregation of Kyminas, and they proudly
51
proclaimed the true faith.

The conservative nature of both the era and the congregation would

demand strict adherence to Church liturgical customs and practice. With

the presence of such a large monastic contingent, it was reasonable that

Methodios would hardly wish to antagonise the conservative monastics.

Since he was the choice of what was considered the moderate party from

within the palace circle of Constantinople, he would have hardly allowed

himself and Theodora to be liturgically innovative on this occasion.

Therefore, he strictly followed the prohibition on women entering the altar

area to assure his detractors that he would indeed be following the strict

Tradition of the Church in his future decisions .

5 1
Mango, "Liquidation of Iconoclasm and Patriarch Photios", p. 134.

99
 The Synodicon

Even though the Synodicon commemorating the Triumph of Orthodoxy

should rightly be categorised as a major work of Methodios, considering it

at this point is appropriate. The opus, as shall be examined, includes three

sections a homily, or patristic exhortation, historically thought to be the work

of Methodios and although these texts are not formally part of the

Synodicon, they will be studied here for the sake of completeness. The

Canon of the Sunday of Orthodoxy, a Methodian composition, and the text

of the Synodicon proper, an amalgamated document of the iconodulic

victory will also be examined as part of the "Synodicon".

These texts will be analysed in the order outlined above. The homily or

exhortation form essentially one tradition and will be examined and

compared in the pages to follow. Finally, it will be shown, in this

comparison that these "Methodian Texts" depend on other root works.

These will be highlighted and discussed. Although a complete line-by-line

analysis is beyond the scope of this study, it will be undertaken in a future

work.

The Aoyog nepl T<3V dytov SI'KOVCJV, which also will be examined is either

a sermon given on The Sunday of Orthodoxy or a catechetical exposition by

the Patriarch. The two sources to be used for comparative purposes are

100
Professor Afinogenov's transcription of Codex Mosquensi Synodial Graeco

52 5 3
5 (Vladimir 412) and Codex Vat. gr. 1753 [folio 225 ff.].

"EicOeaig nepi TCJV dyiwv EIKOVWV : This composition credited to Patriarch

5 4
Methodios can be found in two sources: Pitra, pp. 357 - 361. and Codex

Vat. gr. 1753. The account of this homily, in Pitra, is about sixty to seventy

percent dependent of the mss tradition of the treatise taken from the codex

Vat. gr. 1753 (225r - 230v). Even though the manuscript is attributed to the

55
pen of Patriarch Sophronios of Jerusalem (c. 560 - 6 3 8 ) , and it exhibits

some possible clues, which might indicate a Sophronian origin, this treatise

also has characteristics that could identify it as likely to be Methodian in its

authorship. Because the Vat. gr. 1753 manuscript is more complete than

the Pitra text, it will be the primary source text used in this study. Pitra lists

several sources for the ^EKGEGIQ, the basis for the examination of the

5 6
homily. This Pitra citation is quite old and not as reliable as later

scholarship, but some salient points will be included in this analysis.

Afinogenov, D. (1997) Constantinopolitan Patriarchate- The Iconoclastic Crisis in Byzantium

(784 - 847) - in Russian (Indrink), Moscow, pp. 182 - 188.
5 3
Methodios of Constantinople (c. 843) ExQeoii; Kepi rtov dyiojv EIKOVWV, in Vaf. Gre.1753 (225r
- 230v), Roma, pp. 1 - 1 2 .
5 4
Pitra, J . B. (1868) " S . Methodius C P , " in luris Ecclesiastic'! Graecorum Historia et Monumenta,
vol. 2, (S. Congregationis De Propaganda Fide), Roma, pp. 351 - 365.
5 5
Cross and Livingstone (eds.) The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, p. 1291. Then

note the attribution on Methodios of Constantinople, 'EKdecng nepi TI3V dytcov EIKO'VWV, in p. 1

[225r], line 4.

5 6
Pitra, " S . Methodius C P " , p. 353, he lists Codex vatic. 1753 f. 225, and Mosquens. 140, infra n.
II Afinogenov in his book lists Mosquensi Synodali Graeco 5 (Vladimir 412) anni 1445. This shall
be the text used since it is taken from most recent research (1997).

101
Additionally, the Vita of Methodios contains a passage, which appears by

its placement and construction to be a homily by Methodios. This text will

be considered first then the other texts noted previously will be assessed.

The location of this text within the Vita does make it appear to be a homily

on the Sunday of Orthodoxy. However, with further scrutiny of the structure

and some of the language used, a question arises that perhaps this

particular public rhetoric was not a homily, but could possibly be an oration

57
giving the new patriarch's v i e w s .

It is known that vitae present their subjects in the best possible light and

should be viewed with caution. Nonetheless, exploring the text, we can

easily glimpse into the Methodios' thinking, as he instructs the faithful [or

his clergy] on their conduct and attitudes in confronting the former

iconoclasts. Methodios speaks frankly on the subject of those who had

been the persecutors of Christ, the iconoclasts.

It is for us the blameless and the four pillars of

Orthodoxy not to exact penalties of the miserable
heretics. We cannot inflict the suffering on them
that they inflicted on so many. We must be
tolerant toward them and this Sunday let us
memorialise them in hymn. "Father, forgive them
58
for they knew not what they did..."

5 7
P G , vol. c, 1253 c - 1257 d.
5 8
P G , vol. c, 1256 b - 1257 a. This wording allows the readers of the Vita of Methodios to
identify him and his sufferings with Christ and His Passion.

102
Methodios uses the phrase "this Sunday", which could show that the talk

was not given during the celebration of the restoration of icons, but at some

time before this ceremony, as a preparation for the populace. It can be

noted that the prayers of the Synodicon do not reflect any similar language.

Continuing within the same passage, Methodios is quoted saying that it is

unbecoming to "dig up yesterdays and to use it against them [the heretics]."

He admonishes the citizenry of the Queen City not "to imprison them, not to

look upon these heretics with anger, or to act in any tyrannical fashion

59
towards t h e m . " It becomes obvious that these are not the sentiments of a

zealot or conversely of a "weak sister". Methodios advocates an attitude of

Christian understanding towards the iconoclasts, and even though he

admits to some ill feelings due to personal hardships he suffered, he

6 0
hastened to add "but let me say that my soul is not praiseworthy in that."

Characterising the heresy, Methodios declares that the heretics were vipers

who had closed their ears to the Truth and said.

However, our memory of the Manicheans spewing

out their venomous heresy is without all credible
understanding. The entire world knows this to be
true, the Word became flesh and lived among us.
We saw His glory as the only begotten Son of the
Father in that we also take part having heard His

P G , vol. c, 1257 c.

P G , vol. c, 1255 a.

103
 promise. Blessed are those that have not seen,
6 1
but believe.

This text speaks directly about the heresiarchs, who preferred the glory of

this world, to the blessings of God; and those bishops that did not teach

6 2
and sustain the orthodox faith but promoted iconoclasm. Methodios'

concerns soon become apparent. He wished to underline his desire to

cleanse the Church of this poison, for the last time. This thorny problem

was a cause of great turmoil during the brief years of Methodios' patriarchal

term and into Ignatius' time.

Adyog rrepi r<3v dyiojv EIKOVUV

This analysis is of the text transcribed from Codex Mosquensi Synodali

Graeco 5 (Vladimir 412) anni 1455 and it yields some very different

6 3
conclusions from the segment of the Vita discussed above. Adyog is

identified as the homily of Methodios given on the Sunday of Orthodoxy.

The form and structure is indicative of a patristic based homily. The

introduction, a statement of belief, begins with the basic credal recitation.

The Nicene - Constantinopolitan Creed forms the basis for the introduction

P G . vol. c, col. 1256 d., Here Methodios identified the iconoclastic controversy a s a type of
Manichean Dualism (= Paulicians, in the Byzantine mind), which denied the reality of the
Incarnation. S e e Hamilton, J . and Hamilton, B. (1998) Christian Dualist Heresies in the Byzantine
World, trans. Y. Stoyanov of Old Slavonic Texts (Manchester University P r e s s ) , Manchester & New
York (Manchester Medieval Sources Series) p. 66. Also s e e John 20, 29 for Scriptural reference.
6 2
P G , vol., c, col. 1257 b.
6 3
Afinogenov, Constantinopolitan Patriarchate - The Iconoclastic Crisis in Byzantium (784 - 847)
- in R u s s i a n , pp. 182 - 188.

104
with a series of apophatic statements. There is one interesting aspect of

this part of the text. The third person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit is

described in this manner:

And in the all Holy Spirit the Holy and the Lord,
who together with the Father and the Son is
6 5
worshipped and glorified.

What is startling in its omission, in the above text, is one phrase, " T O E K T O U

ncrrpoQ £KTTop£ud|i£vov". This critical definition of the source of the Holy

Spirit "who proceeds from the Father" is not evident. The subordination of

the Third person of the Trinity is contrary to Orthodox teaching and violates

the credal statement of Constantinople I (381). There is no explanation for

this exclusion.

The Theotokos is identified as the Birthgiver of God and her role in the

Incarnation is acknowledged. The saints, the holy martyrs, holy relics and

finally images are named as worthy of respect veneration and honour.

Methodios states,

I venerate and kiss their honoured images which

are holy not as God but as evidence and
explanation and memory of their suffering. The

To define by negation i.e., "What a thing is not". It is the opposite of cataphatic, or positive
definition. Apophatic theology is favoured by the Eastern Church when describing the attributes of
God. For example - God is unfathomable, indefinable or unknowable.
6 5
Afinogenov, Constantinopolitan Patriarchate - The Iconoclastic Crisis in Byzantium (784 • 847)
- in Russian., p. 182, " K a i E!<; T O i r a v d y i o v T T V E O U O , T O a y i o v K a i K u p i o v , id G U V i r a T p i K a i ultjj
aunTTpoaKuvounEvov K a i ouv5ot,aC,6\ievov.."

105
 icons are not for showing the bodily form only, but
the struggles of their bodies. Because of their
struggles for Christ our God, they are honoured
and venerated. If they had not done these things
for Christ, it would not be necessary to write their
6 6
stories in the books of the Church.

Continuing, the Patriarch attacks the iconoclasts' claim that the icon

supporters engaged in idol worship. He does this with a series of parallel

questions "Whose idol, do I worship...?" With his answers, Methodios

always returns to the Orthodox position of veneration and the Incarnational

economy, and describes in a detailed record the life of Christ and his saving

6 7
ministry.

In his homily, the patriarch then cites patristic proofs of the correctness of

the iconodules' views. St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil the Great are

quoted specifically. Then, Methodios compares the "logographers", those

who handed down the tradition of Christ, in words within the Gospels and

iconographers, "writers of images", who handed this same tradition down in

the form of colour in images.

Tell Me, why the book is venerated and the image

is spat upon? What is the difference between the
two? Because each evangelise one meaning, one
group is venerated while one is spat upon. Who

Ibid., p. 183.

Ibid., pp. 1 8 3 - 1 8 4 .

106
 would not mock such logic? Who would not
ridicule this teaching because both of them explain
one story? One is venerated, while one is spat
upon. Was knowledge in the one and ignorance in
6 8
the other?

Approaching the argument in this manner, Methodios attacks the

iconoclasts' belief that the gospel book was worthy of veneration, while the

act of venerating an icon was idolatry. Methodios returns to the patristic

lesson Saint Basil expounded, quoted by St. John of Damascus,

...the honour shown toward the image is

69
transferred to the prototype. . Just as the insult...
Thus, it should be for the image of the King of
Heaven. He who insults the image of Christ, he
7 0
directs the insult to the prototype [Christ].

The next line of reasoning that Methodios presents is that of Christ's

incarnation and the circumscribable nature of the OedvOpumoc; [the God-

7 1
Man]. Again, this is a summary of the arguments of John of Damascus

Ibid., p. 184: "Atom T ? I V J I E V p(pAov TTPOCTKUVETTE ical T 6 V TifvctKa E U T T T U E T E , EIVE U O I ; Tiq

5ia<|>opd T(3v 8uo, S T I &\ity6j£poi (ifav t^l\yr]aiv £i)ayy£A(£ovTai, ical 6 EIQ TrpoaKuvETrai; 6
T o u
8 E ETepoq E j i n T U E T a i ; f l Tf]g auu<t)opde;. T(g ou \if{ Kajayebdati ir\v K p t m v TauTiyv; T i c W
P S E A U ^ E T C I I T I ^ V 5i6aaKaA(av T a u T i i v , 8 T I du<|>dTEpoi j i ( a v EpuTivEuouoi ypa<|>^v, icai 6 \iev t\q
TTpooKuveiTai, 6 8 E ETEpog EjiTTTOETai; ET5E<; y v u i o i v , (iSAAov 6E d y v w c r i a v ; "
69
lbid., p. 185. S e e St. John of Damascus On Images, Three Apologies Against Those Who
Attack the Divine Images, p. 29. S e e St. Basil the Great (1980) On the Holy Spirit, trans. D.
Anderson (St Vladimir's Seminary Press), Crestwood NY., chap 18, p. 72.
70
Afinogenov, Constantinopolitan Patriarchate - The Iconoclastic Crisis in Byzantium (784 - 847)
• in Russian, p. 185;See St. John of Damascus, On Images, Three Apologies Against Those Who
Attack the Divine Image, p. 29. S e e St. Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit, chap 18, p. 72.
7 1
St. John of D a m a s c u s , On Images, Three Apologies Against Those Who Attack the Divine
Images, pp. 50 ff.

107
and the refutations of Theodore of Studios over the issues that were

raised by the opponents of images. The exhortation continues, explaining

the value of "unwritten" traditions.

Many and other traditions we have received from

the apostles and the fathers that were not spoken
by Christ. At what point did Christ say to venerate
facing east, or to venerate the Cross, the Gospel,
or to commune His Body, fasting, or for couples to
7 3
be crowned?

Methodios now evokes the patristic authority of the great Ecumenical

Councils of the Church asking why an earlier council did not strike down the

use of images. He begins with the First and continues through the Sixth

asking the rhetorical question, "Why these Fathers in Council did not

7 4
prohibit images?" When the Patriarch arrives at the Sixth Council, he

nd
tightens his reasoning by centring on the 8 2 Canon of the Sixth Council.

He explains the context of the canon and then quotes this canon verbatim:

In some pictures of the venerable icons, a lamb is

painted to which the finger of the Precursor points
his finger, which is received as a type of grace,

7 2
St. Theodore the Studite, (1981) On Holy Icons, trans. C . P. Roth (St. Vladimir's Seminary
Press), Crestwood, NY, pp. 22 - 23 and pp. 69 - 73.
7 3
Afinogenov, Constantinopolitan Patriarchate • The Iconoclastic Crisis in Byzantium (784 - 847)
- in Russian, p. 185.
7 4
This is called the Quinisext Council in the West = Council of the Trullo in the East
(Penthecton). The Eastern Church considers this a completion of the Sixth Ecumenical Council.
S e e Percival (ed.) A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church
The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church, vol. 14, pp. 356 - 357.

108
 indicating beforehand through the Law, our true
Lamb, Christ our God. Embracing the ancient
types and shadows as symbols of the truth, and
patterns given to the Church, we prefer "grace and
truth," receiving it as the fulfilment of the Law. In
order therefore that "that which is perfect" may be
delineated to the eyes of all, at least in coloured
expression, we decree that the figure in human
form of the Lamb who taketh away the sin of the
world, Christ our God be henceforth exhibited in
images, instead of the ancient lamb, so that all
may understand by means of it the depths of the
humiliation of the Word of God, and that we may
recall to our memory his conversation, in the flesh,
his passion and salutary death, and his redemption
7 5
which was wrought for the whole world.

Forthwith, Methodios adds this strong statement,

If this is what the Fathers have ruled, what right do

we have to go beyond those rulings of theirs,
causing schism in God's Church. Do you not know
that he who throws down the rulings of the Fathers
7 6
receives anathema?

The Patriarch states explicitly, "the Fathers of all six synods fought and

cursed other heresies to throw them down; and tell me, is not idolatry

7 5
Ibid., vol.14, p. 401. The Popes considered this Canon a s a valid ruling of the "Sixth Council."
S e e notes on p. 401, s e e Afinogenov, Constantinopolitan Patriarchate • The Iconoclastic Crisis in
Byzantium (784 - 847) - in Russian, p. 186.
7 6
Afinogenov, Constantinopolitan Patriarchate - The Iconoclastic Crisis in Byzantium (784 - 847)
- in R u s s i a n , p. 186: ' " E d v ol naTEpEg O O T U X ; wpiaav, <t\\ie1c, nofav E"XOMEV dvdyKiiv O T T E P P C U V E I V
Touq Spoug auTuiv Ka( P O M E I V oxia\iaia tic, TT\V tY.Kkr\a{av T O O 0 E O O ; O I 3 K oTSag, O T I 6
KcrraAuwv opia TWV naT^pwv T O dvdOEpa AauPdvEi;"

109
worse?" Over the next few paragraphs of his address, Methodios details

the Old Testament use of imagery in the Temple and its relationship to

idolatry, the appearances of non-corporeal and depicted angelic figures in

both the Old and New Testament and the apostolic witness. He continues

the patristic record and finally states that the role of the bishop is an

instructive one.

This is why bishops exist to instruct [emphasis

mine] the people, how they should behave and how
they should pray. Because those fathers, the true
fathers and teachers, guides to salvation, were
concerned only to teach the people that which is
necessary for their salvation, truly wishing to give
an account to God for the good of the people. The
bishops of this generation do not concern
themselves with anything, but only when they will
7 8
be called upon and rewarded.

This characterisation and reference may very well reveal some foundational

thinking of the new Patriarch. Methodios had very strong opinions on the

role of the bishop, which will be explored in Chapter 4, which centres on

Methodios' ecclesiology. After this description, the Patriarch compares and

contrasts the leaders of the iconoclasts with the great fathers of the Church.

In these extracts, he uses the same derogatory nicknames for the

iconoclasts, which are used later in the Synodicon. Methodios turns his

7 7
Ibid., p. 186.
7 8
Ibid., p. 187: " A i d T O O T O e i a i v o l E T T I O K O T I O I E J Q T O 8 i 6 d a K E i v T O V Aadv, TIGQ 5 E T T T I O T E U E I V
r( TT(3g E u x E a G a i . K a i yap o l TTOTEPEC; E K E T V O I , o l dAT]9tivoi n a T E p s g K a i 6 i 6 d a K a A o i , o l dStiyoi
Tfj<; au>TT|p'ia<;, O I ) 5 E V dXAo EjiEpi'jivwv, ( ^ 6 5 i 8 d a K E i v T O V Aadv T O npoq a w T i ^ p i a v ,
£ T KOTO
d A i ^ s i a v pouXd^Evoi Xdyov dnoSoOvai T I ? &E6) u n E p T O O AaoO. O l bt E I T I O K O T I O I TT|Q YEVEQQ
TauTiic; dAAo O I ) 5 E V nepinvwaiv, E ( HOTE" d v a K A i G u i a i , K a i vQq K a i T ( d p i O T i ^ a w a i v . "

110
attention to the Council of Hiereia-Blachernae (754). The contrast between

the six legitimate councils and the council called by Constantine V was

underlined.

To whom should we listen? The holy six

ecumenical councils or the one without a head
[Council of Hiereia] rejected by God and His saints.
It was without a head. And tell me which Patriarch
was there from Alexandria, none, Patriarch of
Rome, no one; nor Antioch or his representative,
Jerusalem, not even one, unworthy synod, without
a Patriarch? But, he who was elected and
deposed and killed himself. Oh! Who would not
7 9
mock such a synod?

The next section compares the work of the iconoclast with that of the

Jewish leaders of the Temple and their treatment of Christ at the time of His

Passion. Each of these assemblies, in Methodios' eyes had one source,

Satan himself. All the acts of the iconoclasts were evils against the person

of Christ. After this portion, Methodios begins his conclusion. The activities

that will occur during his Patriarchal interval are clearly stated. He speaks

of his legacy, his memory and how he wishes that history will remember his

time as the archpastor of his flock.

7 9
Ibid., p. 187: " T ( v a UTiaKouaojiev; 7aq d y ( a g E J ; oCKoujiEViKdi; ouv(58oug, r( T I ^ V dK£<|>aAov
TauTT]v K a i £p6EXr)y|i£'v!]v ical napd GEOU Kcti T<3V dyi'wv adTou; K a i y a p dKE^aAdg tariv. Kai
EJTTE jior TTOTOC; naTpidpxn? eupEGti tv auTij; 'O ' AAE^avSpEiai;, OU86AIUQ- 6 Pw^lQ oO
xaTES^aTO EAOETV tv -
auT<j 6 ' A v T i o x E t a i ; , od&t TO advoAov 6 'iEpoaoAu^wv, oi)5e dna^.
Aonrdv TTOTQTTT] O U V O 6 O Q , TTaTpidpxilv Exouaa; ' A M d Kai fiv dnoi'TiOEv £aTpd<t>T| icai ^(^ai;
T
d i i E K T E i v E v £auT(5v. f l Tiq o u \if\ K a T a y E A d a £ i T o i a u T r j v auvoSov;.. " This last p a s s a g e refers
to Theodotus Cassiteras chosen by Constantine V in 754; he later committed suicide.

111
 We will research the writings and the traditions of
the Fathers and we will imitate them. As we found
the Church, we will leave it. Thus, we will pass it
on. We will not separate ourselves from the
Fathers; perhaps, the next generation would
anathematise and exhume us. Surely, we will not
gain even if we go to the ends of the earth. I hope,
beseech and if I exist, even unworthy of heaven
and earth, that God grant that I am in communion
with the Six Ecumenical Synods and have a place
80
among t h e m .

The last few lines of the homily are a benediction and a blessing.

An evaluation of the two tracts presented above yields some interesting

observations. The first example, from the Vita, appears to be an address

made in public sometime before The Sunday of Orthodoxy. It contains

paternal advice and Christian teaching on the correct behaviour with

reference to the wayward iconoclasts. Nevertheless, Methodios also

admitted some personal feelings of resentment at the suffering that he and

others received at the hands of the heretics. Methodios was concise and

straightforward when he stated his desire to cleanse the Church of the

poison that had infected it.

Ibid., p.188. folio [147r - v " ' H J I E T I ; 5E '£p£Uvijau)|iEv Tag Tpaifidg K a i napa8da£ig T W V
rraTEpwv, Kai' O O T O U Q \xi\ir\o6\icQa- K a i KaOwg EUpajiEV T I ^ V '£KKAr|a(av, otPnog auTfl K a i
w a i l , 1 E V
TiapapEivwuEv, K a i ouTwg a u T i i v K a i TTapa8dowu£v. Kai x P^ l E a u T o u g and rav
TiaTEpwv i^uwv, urjirwg tAGouaa tilpa yeved ( I E A A E I fiuag dva0£(iaTi'^Eiv K a i d v a a K d i T T E i v Kai
dvTwg OI)5EV f\\i&c, w<|>£Ai|aouai id. irepaTa Tfjg yfjg. 'Eyui EiSxojiai Kai TTapaKaAw, si Kai dvd^iog
T O O oupavoO K a i Tfjg yfjg undpxw Ta K a T a ^ i w a i ] JIE 6 0£dg J I E T O T T | V EE, d y i o v O ( K O H £ V I K < 3 V
£ i v
oovd5u)v K o i v w v d v yev£O0ai Kai ? x H£P°Q H E T ' O U T I S V . "

112
The treatise from the Moscow codex, Vladimir 412, has a different aura

from the Vita discourse. The text begins with the declaration of the credal

roots of the iconodules. Methodios presents the central arguments of the

iconoclasts, one by one, and he refutes them. The patriarch then proves

the correctness of the orthodox position and its origin from within the true

Tradition of the Church. The exposition is replete with patristic references,

which many times follows the pattern of the early apologists for images.

Using the patristic method, he declares that nothing innovative is added to

the received treasure of faith; it is applied specifically to each age under the

8 1
inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The sermon continues with an identification

of the "standards" of the Church defined by the Six Ecumenical Synods,

[here it should be noted that Nicaea II is not yet declared the Seventh

Council]. Nonetheless, the criteria for defining the nature of an ecumenical

synod are stated quite clearly. Finally, Methodios evokes the authority of

the historical Church and Tradition to seal the victory over the iconoclastic

heresy that had rent the fabric of the Church and the Empire for more than

a hundred and twenty years. The content, form, language and didactic

quality of the composition are self-evident. If this treatment is examined

with these points of comparison in mind, then it is highly probable that this

discourse is partly or in total the homily of the Sunday of the Triumph of

Orthodoxy.

8 1
Percival (ed.) A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church
The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church, vol.14, p. 555. S e e Canon One of the
Council of Nicaea II to be discussed later in this work.

113
"ExOeoiq nspi TWV dyiojv SI'KOVOJV

Closely related to Codex Mosquensi Synodali Graeco 5 (Vladimir 412) anni

1445, is Codex Vat. gr. 1753 folio [225ff], which is titled above. Comparing

these two texts side by side, there can be little doubt that one depends on

the other. The Vladimir codex is slightly longer, while the Vat. gr. codex

has slightly more detail; but the basic substantive points are the same.

There is a version of these texts also found in Pitra. It is labelled "Exdeaig

82
nepi T(3v dyiajv si'/cdvuv , This document has large sections that

duplicate either Vladimir 412 or Vat. gr. 1753. As this analysis continues,

some variances between the two documents will be demonstrated.

Returning to the comparison of Vladimir 412 and Vat. gr. 1753, the

openings are similar, as one would expect, since they are statements which

position the writer within the Holy Tradition of the Church. There is a

specific departure in Vat. gr. 1753 in the opening paragraph. In this version

the Holy Spirit is described in this manner:

And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life,

who proceeds from the Father, who together with
the Father and the Son is worshiped and
83
glorified.

8 2
Pitra, " S . Methodius C P " , pp. 357 - 361.
8 3
The phrase "who proceeds from the Father" is included in this text, unlike the similar exposition
in Vladimir 412 (taken from Nicene - Constantinopolitan Creed).

114
The Pitra text does not record this portion of the work and it cannot be

determined whether reference to the procession of the Holy Spirit is present

or not. Folios [225r] and [225v] of Vat. gr. 1753 manuscript frame and

elucidate the orthodox Trinitarian doctrine as defined by the first Six

Ecumenical Councils. The author uses these familiar phrases:

[The Trinity] one in nature, and essence and

divinity, and one kingship and source and force
and with three hypostasis (persons), that is to say
one person, which I call characteristics and
properties for hypostasis is another thing and
84
essence yet another...

This passage continues to re-enforce the nature and the essence of the

persons of the Holy Trinity as defined by the Holy Tradition of the Church.

On page two, there is the use of a passage credited to St. Gregory the

Theologian. Gregory uses the metaphor of the sun, its light and its rays to

illustrate the properties of the Trinity. The use of these lessons of

Trinitarian theology could well have been used either by Sophronios or by

Methodios to prove their adherence to the Orthodoxy of the Councils. In

speaking of the Son on page three [226r]; the text speaks directly to the

central issue for the iconodules, the Incarnational Economy of Our Lord

Jesus Christ. Even though this theology was accepted by iconoclasts, the

iconodules sought to embrace it as their own.

Methodios of Constantinople, E/cOecng nepi T<3V dyiuv CIKOVWV, page 3, folio [225r], lines 23 -
25: " ..tic, \iiav <|>uaiv K a i ouaiav K a i GtoTriTav, K a i n ( a v paaiAEiav K a i dpx^v K a i laxuv, K a i
a a K T a
TptTg u n o a T d a e i g , r(youv T O Trpriaumov a K a i x P 1 P S K0tA<3 K a i l5iwTTiTa<; d M o yap
OTidoTaan; K a i dAAo o u o i a . . "

115
 If I am asked concerning the Holy Incarnation of
Our Lord Jesus Christ thus we answer: from the
Scriptures this is how we believe that the Lord
became man that He is the Word of God the
uncircumscribable, without body, the unbegotten
Son of the Father, Light from Light, the fount of life,
and immortality, the reflection of Glory, and the
image of the substance. And according to the will
of the Father, who is before the beginning and with
the synergy of the Holy Spirit and He took upon
Himself, flesh from the virginal blood of the Holy
85
Mother of God and Ever-Virgin Mary ...

On page four [226r] and Pitra page 357, Methodios declares his acceptance

of all the ecclesiastical traditions both written and unwritten. He also states

8 6
that he venerates the august images of the human body of the Word.

This theological exposition speaks directly to the reality of the Incarnation

and the assumption of human flesh by the Logos. St. Gregory the

Theologian states in his Letter to the priest Kledonios [no. 101] the

following:

That which is not assumed has not been healed;

8 7
but that which is united to God is saved.

Ibid., page 3 folio [226r], lines 6 - 1 4 : " Edv 5 E cpuTd U E T I I ; GeTaq ev(avGpwTT)Ttaew<; T O G
K ( u p ( o ) u i^(i(3v'I(iiao)0 X ( p i o T o ) u , diroicpivoOnai auT(?d7rd ypa<t>fjq TT«3Q 5ET T T I O T E U E I V Kai TOU
K(upi'o)u Evav(0pwTi)^aE(i)(;, O T I auTog 6 TOO 0(EO)O Adyog, 6 dTTEpfypanTog, 6 dawuaToi;, 6
K a l T
HOvoyEvifc T O U n(aT)p(6)q ' Y i d g , T O E K T O O <j>WTd<; <t><3<;, i^ nr\yr\ Tflg fl? d6avaa(ai;, T O
d n a u y a a n a TT|Q Sd^il?, 6 xapa*TTip Tflg d n o a T d a E w g , Tij f3ouAq T O U npddvdpxou n ( a T ) p ( 6 ) q K a i
Tfj a o v £ p y £ ( g T O O a y i o u nv(EU|iaTo)<;, E K T<3V n a p B E v i K w v a i u a T U V , TT}<; ayiaq Kai d£inap0£vou
Map(ac;, tv TTJ o i K E i ' a auTOU u r r o a T a a E i E'TTTJ^EV E O U T W a d p K a . "
8 6
Ibid., page 4, lines 10 - 12, also s e e Pitra, " S . Methodius C P " , p. 357 for the very s a m e
wording: "iTapa5daEig, £yypd<j>ou<; TE Kai dypd<t>oug, npoaTrrdaao(iai Kai npooKuvu TTJV
TrdvoETTTov E ( K O V O V T O O dvGpwm'vou auj|iaToc; T O O 0 ( E O ) O Adyou.."
8 7
P G vol. xxxvii Epistle ad Cledonius, 101 4 - 7, 10.

116
The veneration of Holy Images is linked to both Holy Tradition and to the

Incarnational theology of Christ's salvific economy, which is at the very

heart of Methodian and iconodulic thinking. This tract continues in lines 15

- 22 to enumerate the other objects worthy of veneration - the Cross, the

Holy Lands, the Holy Scriptures and the blessed temples of worship; which

were objects that the iconoclasts also accepted as entities due veneration.

Methodios then points out that many of these were made by the hands of

man. Now, he returns to his central theme of the images by relating the

88
icon of the Theotokos as a typos of the image of G o d . The patriarch

states that this image is due veneration. Methodios presently lists the

members of the community of faith, which are also worthy of veneration in

images. This list includes the Lord Jesus Christ, the Theotokos, St. John

the Baptist and Forerunner of Christ, the Holy Apostles, the disciples and

the Holy Martyrs of the Church. Methodios extends this line of thinking in

folio [227r] to include other types of holy men and women that could be

portrayed in icons. He defends the sanctity of these images as well as the

value of the use of icons. He states, "they are venerated and kissed, not as

gods, let it never happen; but similar to the honour given to the Holy

Scriptures." Methodios adds that this is done in remembrance of their

8 9
sufferings and the examples they have set in their lives.

G e n . 1, 26 ff. This is true of all of mankind, but it especially true of the Theotokos a s she is
considered the "New Eve" in Orthodox theology. The Virgin Mary rectified the original sin of the old
Eve with her voluntary participation in the Incarnation of Christ. S e e Luke 1, 26 ff. This position
was accepted by the iconoclasts.
8 9
Methodios of Constantinople, EKdemg nepi TWV dy(wv eixovuv, page 5, folio [227r], lines 12 -
20: " TUSV TTpopTiBEve'vTwv Aeyw Sii T O O K(up(o)u'l(noo)0 X ( p i a T o ) u " , T f ^ ' u n E p a y i a g © ( E O T O ) K O U ,
T O O d y i o o npo5pd|iOu, T W V irpovopou TT(aTE)pwv, Tr(aT)piapx<3v, Trpo<|>TiTu>v, dTrocrrdAiov,
(ictp-rupwv, 6 a ( w v Upapxuv, d c n a a T p i a i v K a i d9Ao<j>dpu)v y u v a i K i o v , djiidug Tdg o u p a v i o u g
5uvdn£iQ 6(ioAoy<3, OEUwuai K a i 6o^d^w Taq K a i a E f i a o u f a g ag auT<3v E i K d v a g K a i <t>df3w TTOAAI?

117
In folio [144r] section 2 of Vladimir 412, which corresponds with folio [227r]

of 1753, the author lists the very same pagan gods and goddesses in

answer to the rhetorical question, which idols do you say I worship? The

Christian cynosures are answers to the pagan personalities named:

9 Apollo is answered by comparing his statue

with the image of Christ and the Divine
Economy taught in icons
• Artemis is answered with the image of the
Theotokos
• Dios - is answered with the icon St. John
the Baptist
• Zeus [and Hercules] is answered with the
icon of Holy Apostles

In both manuscripts, Methodios outlines events in salvation history, which

the Church has handed down teaching the Incarnation of Christ in icons

and in the Gospels. Once again, the lists are identical. The Annunciation,

the Nativity, the cave, the manger, the mid-wife, the swaddling clothes, the

Wise men, the Baptism and so forth are each enumerated one by one. This

9 0
list continues through the Ascension and Pentecost. The miracles, during

Christ's earthly ministry, are detailed in the next catalogue. Again, these

lists coincide in both codices. Towards the end of this folio and into the

beginning of folio [227v], the Patriarch uses one of his favourite literary

practices, quoting Old Testament figures. Utilising the prophetic authorities

auTctg K a i TTI'OTEI daird^oiiai, oux WQ Stoug, \if\ y t v o i T O , dAA' (iq ypa<|>£<; K a i ^ityriatv Kai
uTtdtivriaiv T U V naGtmaTuv a u T u v . " -
90
Vladimir 412, folio [144r] = Vat. gr. 1753, folio [227r], lines 15 ff.

118
of Isaiah and David, Methodios counters the idea that the use of images is

idolatrous. This accusation is the charge that the iconomachie, or as the

new Patriarch refers to them," the godless Theomachie", had levelled at the

supporters of images.

Both compositions then compare and contrast the relative value in teaching

the Incarnation by "logographers" and by "iconographers" citing St. Basil as

the patristic source. St. Basil had illustrated his lesson using the phrase

"written and unwritten sources". Methodios simply extends this to fit his

meaning, he further states they are of equal value in teaching, illustrating

9 1
and transmitting the Incarnation. He emphasises the lesson that

Scripture is an aspect of Holy Tradition; but there are other valuable

components, which present the Truth to the Body of Christ, the Church.

One of these is the presentation of theology in images. The similarities

continue as the patristic authority of St. John Chysostomos is used to

bolster the author's convictions. Once more, the same meaning is reflected

in both treatises. In St. John's Holy Thursday homily, the likeness of the

emperor and the icon of Christ are compared; St. John asserts that honour

due to the portrait of the earthly king is appropriate, but that the higher

9 2
honour is befitting the icon of the Heavenly King. Both folios quote St.

Basil's classic assertion that the honour paid to the image passes on to the

prototype. The correspondence proceeds to the main critique of the

iconoclasts' theology; the accusation made is the charge that by their

Methodios of Constantinople, EKdeaiq nepi TWVdyi'wvEIKOVWV, in, folio [228r], lines 1 5 - 2 1 .

Vladimir 412, folio [145r) = vat. gr. 1753, [228v], lines 12 ff.

119
"logic", they, the iconoclasts, separate the flesh of Christ (i.e. his humanity)

from His Divinity. The iconodules state that this never occurs, not in the

9 3
womb of the Virgin or elsewhere.

The compositions are parallel concerning the tradition of image use the

Church received from the time of Christ until the patriarchate of Germanos.

Each of the Ecumenical Synods is recounted through the Sixth. The

question asked was why image use was not deemed idolatrous by any of

9 4
these august assemblies of Holy Fathers. The Vladimir text quotes the

nd 9 5
82 Canon of the Council of Trullo, whereas the Vat. gr. 1753 text

excludes this reference. In folio [229r] of Vat. gr. and folio [146r] of Vladimir

412, the tracts again converge citing the same patristic fathers

9 6
Chrysostomos, Basil and Gregory of Nyssa. From this point to the

conclusion of each composition, they diverge, that is with one exception; in

the last folio Vladimir 412 [147r] and the last of Vat. gr. 1753 [230r], both

include the Seventh Ecumenical Council at Nicaea as one of the Holy

Councils of the Church.

Afinogenov, Constantinopolitan Patriarchate • The Iconoclastic Crisis in Byzantium (784 • 847)

u £l T | v
• in Russian, p. 185 folio [145r]: "Aoinov x P ^ C Q ^ o d p K a dno Tfjq GeoTiyroi;; Mr} y^voiTo-
O U S E T T O T E yap £x«p(a0iicrav dir'dAAfjAwv, OIKTE E V T I J KoiAfa if\q, \n)ip6q..." = Methodios of
Constantinople, EKdeoig nepi TGV dyi'wv EIKOVWV, page 9, folio [229r], lines 1 - 4 exact wording in
both.
9 4
Methodios of Constantinople, EKdeoiq nepi TISV dyi'wv elicdvwv, page 10, folio [229v], lines 1 -
9.
9 5
Afinogenov, Constantinopolitan Patriarchate - The Iconoclastic Crisis in Byzantium (784 - 847)
• in Russian, p. 185.
9 6
In vat. gr., folio [229v], line 7, Gregory of Nyssa is wrongly identified a s Gregory the
Theologian. The quotation is correctly attributed to Gregory of Nyssa.

120
As has been shown, the same language was used in the work Adyog rrspi

Tcjv dyi'wv eiKdvcjv, (codex, Mosquensi Synodali Graeco 5 (Vladimir 412)

anni 1445) and "EicOeaig nepi TUV dyiwv KCCI asnrdJv SI'KOVOJV (codex Vat.

gr. 1753. There is striking parallelism between these two works.

By turning our attention to another source, we find that the Pitra text has

remained identical with Vat. gr 1753 until the mid-point in folio [228v], line 6.

The two versions diverge only to resume the same wording again in line 18

folio [229r] "..ydp CXUTOQ X(pioid)q im Tfjg." The intervening portion

concentrates on further iconodulic defence for image use. The iconoclasts

are chided with this challenge by Methodios, for their veneration of the

Gospel Book:

Tell me, what do you venerate in the book of the

Gospel, the material or the interpretation of the
Incarnational Economy? Surely, the interpretation;
and thus it is with the Holy Icons we do not honour
the planks of wood, not the wall, but the image of
the Body and the interpretation of Christ's
97
Economy and of the S a i n t s . . .

After this direct attack, Methodios again relies on patristic texts to support

his line of reasoning. He cites St. John Chrysostomos' sermon of Great

Methodios of Constantinople, EKdecnc, nepi ridv dyftov elxdvwv, p. 8., folio [228v], lines 7 - 1 1 :
"EITTE \IOI, T(V<X TTpdoKuveTg iv Tij pfpAty T O U E u a y y c A i o u T I ^ V O A T J V if T ^ V SiTtynaiv
-
tvadpxou o i K o v o j i f a g trdvTwg rr\v E i ^ y i j a i v oLfrwi; K a i i i r i T<3V d y f w v d i c d v w v , ou rr\v a a v ^ 8 a v
a a K T , a T 0
n\i&\iev oi35e T O V T U X O V , dAAd T O V x P l'P ° awjiaToi; K a i T I ^ V ei;rjyr|aiv rfji; T O U
X ( p i a T o ) 0 oli<ovon(a<; K a i TWV dyiu)v.."Afinogenov, Constantinopolitan Patriarchate - The
Iconoclastic Crisis in Byzantium (784 - 847) - in Russian, p. 184, folio [144v) = Pitra, " S . Methodius
C P . " , p. 359 slightly different wording.

121
and Holy Thursday in which the analogy of the honour paid to the portrait of

the Emperor, an earthly king, and to the spotless image of Christ, the

9 8
Heavenly King is made. Toward the end of this folio, a critical precept is

elucidated further explaining the theology of the iconodules. Speaking

directly to the issue of whether Christ could be depicted since he is God,

Methodios makes this reflection:

So thus it is good to conclude that he that does not

honour the image of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus
Christ would not flee from dishonouring with gross
insults Christ, Himself? Because you ask me, is
God uncircumscribable? I acknowledge that the
Divine is uncircumscribable and without passion
and unknowable; but the flesh, as it was seen on
Earth after his passion is circumscribable. The
iconomachos says, "Well then, You, separate the
flesh from the Divinity. Oh, the sly reasoning of the
Godless, may it never be so, they were never
separate not in the Womb of His Mother or at His
9 9
Baptism or..."

Starting on line 7 of this same folio Methodios uses a literary approach he

has used in other tracts. He uses the same phrase oux' n nap^ repeatedly

9 8
Methodios of Constantinople, "EKOEOII; nep( TI3V dyt'wv eixovuv, p. 10 , folio [228v], lines 12 -
19.
9 9
Ibid., [228v - 229r], lines 26 - 30 and 1 - 5 : " OI3TU><; XP^ A o y ^ E a O a i K a i tm. Tfj<; E i K o v o g
TOO K ( u p i o ) 0 f\\iGv * I ( i i a o ) 0 X ( p i O T o ) 0 6 T I d n n d ^ o v aiiTr|v T O V X ( p i a T o ) v d T i | i d £ r | TI'Q OO \ir\
<|>uyi] T I I V o"|3piv(;) T O O X(piOTo)0- K a i tpf\$ H°i o n 6 0 ( E O ) Q dnepfypaTTTdg i o r t v Kdyw OUTUIQ
6poAoyu5 cm TO OETOV "(JnEpfypanTov EOTIV Kai diraG^v Kai dKOTavdriTov, f| 8E adp£
TiEpiypd(J)ETai wc, 6pa0fj tm yflg ( I E T O TU>V naGTNid-rwv O O T O O . ' O E i K o v o j i a x o c , \£yei- K a i Aoinov
Xwpf^rjg rf\v adpKav duo Tfj<; OEOTTITOQ- (il TWV irovripwv Aoyia|i<3v T<3V dGEiov ou yap
EXiopijaOiiaav dtr' dAAtjAuv, pr\ yevono OI^TE EV Tfj KoiXig (i(r|T)p(d)<;, OL(TE im TOU
PanTiajiaTO^..."

122
to emphasise his intent and the proofs of his theology. This use of

anaphora is characteristic of Methodian rhetorical style and is illustrated in

the following passage:

...irwg Tfjv adpKa TT£piypd<j>r|g (jdviiv £yui 5e epur

na
Tig'£0uAacj£v ydAa £K Tf)g TTapBevou, oux A 1
P^
Tig iajdQx] yu^vog E V T<$ 'Iop5dvi TroTafiw, ouxi 4
oop^i Tig 65uTidpr|<T£v Kai ^KomaaEv, r\ Tig
E^ayEv K a i E'TTIEV, OI>XI r\ nap^ Tig rjnAoaEv, Tag
TraAd|iag E V aT(au)p<3, ooxi f\ aapfc-TTEpi be
1 0 0
Tfig 0£OTr|Tog,..

1 0 1
On [229r] line 18, the two texts, the manuscript tradition and that of Pitra

cite the incident of Christ, Himself, forming the "image made without hands"

by wiping His Holy Face on a Towel. Methodios states that since this

image came down from Christ and was still in existence, he then asks how

1 0 2
could venerating this object be considered idol worship? Furthermore,

Methodios adds this historical dimension,

Methodios makes the point that the practice of

venerating images had been handed down from
the time of Christ until the time of the Patriarch
Germanos. Suddenly this custom was idol
worship; why had not the First Synod condemned it
103
or the Second (and so fourth though the Sixth)...

1 0 0
Ibid., [229r] lines 6 - 11.
1 0 1
Pitra, " S . Methodius C P . " , p. 359.
1 0 2
Methodios of Constantinople, ExOeoig nepi TU)V dyfwv EIKOVUV, p. 9, folio [229r], lines 1 8 - 2 3 .
1 0 3
Ibid., [229r - 229v], lines 28 - 30 and lines 1 - 4: " . . . f u g Tfj<; KcrrapdaeuN; T O O KupioO
TEptiavou T O O d y i [ o ] T a T o u n(ctT)pidpxou TTpoaEKUvtt 6 Aaog TOTQ eCSwAoig, ndrt lbr\
dvanAr)p(jj9fjvai T O V <SVW K O O ( I O V dAAd O U K E i a i v Ef5uMa \ix\ y ^ v o u o [229v] dva^idg E O T I V Ttjg

123
Methodios then recounts the list of all the further four synods [one through

six, total] and adds the Holy Fathers, Gregory the Theologian, Basil of

1 0 4
Caesarea (r| Keadpiav). In this manner, Methodios illustrated that the

whole of Church History, Tradition and collective practices of the people of

God, supported the use and veneration of icons. This, he states, was the

rule until the time of Germanos. The clear-cut emphasis is the fact that the

heresy of the iconoclasts is the anomaly and at variance with the orthodox

practices of the catholic Church. Methodios then quotes St. Paul and

Moses to substantiate his argument. In folio [230v], with an eye to

underline and accentuate his position, he again names each of the

Ecumenical Synods individually. The changes he makes are: he now

includes Nicaea II in the list of Holy Synods and for added significance, he

reports the number of bishops that attended each Synod. This technique is

used, no doubt, to underscore the historical support and foundation for

1 0 5
image use throughout the life of the Church. Methodios closes this work

by declaring his acceptance of the rulings of the Synods, accepting their

anathematising of heretics and upholding their rulings. He declares his

faith in the life-giving Trinity and quotes the last article of the Nicene-

1 0 6
Constantinopolitan Creed.

Tuiv x p i O T i a v w v Kai ^ U G E V rf\q dyiaq T O O 0 ( E O ) O £KKAr)a(ag Kai E I T O dvd0E|i<r O T I adia Kcrrd

T I S V d y i w v E t K o v u v Aoyi£d(i£vo<;- !*( yap efaav EtSwAa, nwg E S E ^ O V T O airrd i^ irpuTi) auvoboq. Kai
ndAiv r| SeuTEpa..."
1 0 4
This is most probably a reference to C a e s a r e a . Also the two texts confuse the Gregories,
Nanzianzus and N y s s a . This is confirmed by reference to parallel text in Mosquensi Synodial
Graeco 5 (Vladimir 412). Afinogenov, Constantinopolitan Patriarchate - The Iconoclastic Crisis in
Byzantium (784 • 847) - in Russian, p. 186. Here Methodios speaks of the impact of the image of
Christ's Crucifixion on St. Gregory.
1 0 5
Methodios of Constantinople. EKOEOII; nepi TUV dyiwv EIKOVWV, p. 12, folio [230v], lines 6 -
12.
1 0 6
Ibid., [230v], line 20.

124
Before leaving the commentary on this manuscript, some observations

about the disputed authorship are necessary. What is the evidence that

this work could be the work of St. Sophronios? Primarily, it is the attribution

1 0 7
to Sophronios in the opening of the work. This label is then quite

strangely negated because the attribution continues to define the nature of

the writing as a defence of the Six Holy Ecumenical Councils, which would

include Constantinople III; which was held in 680 AD. Sophronios had died

108
about forty years prior to this Council. The introductory attribution

continues to catalogue the theological precepts to be championed in the

1 0 9
treatise.

The dispute of monothelitism and monenergism, associated with

Sophronios, is not mentioned or defended within the context of the material.

The only other possible hint that this work might not be Methodian in origin

is the simplicity of the Greek used. Unlike some of the other texts to be

examined, this particular piece seems to use relatively easier syntax.

There could be another possibility that this might be a hybrid document or

that these three separate works could have a common origin in other

110
texts. In the early twentieth century, the search for a common source

Ibid., [225r], line 4: "Tou T O TT(<rr)p(d)? ^(J<3v Io<|>pov(ou n(aT)pidpxou'l£poaoAujiuv..."

1 0 8
C r o s s and Livingstone (eds.) The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, p. 1291.
1 0 9
Methodios of Constantinople, E/cGecng nep( T<3V dydov elxovwv, p. 9, folio [225r], line
6:"...TT£pi Tfj<; 0Eta<; £voripicou o f K o v o p i a , K a i T<3V d y ( w v aEtrruiv EiKovtov"
1 1 0
T h e s e two documents may have a common source in Oratio adversus Constantinum
Caballinum. S e e E. Kurtz, in Byzantinische Zeitschrift, tomos xi (1902), pp. 543 ff. A third strongly

125
document began. This search also centred on a stemma leading to the

Methodian texts, which have just been reviewed. Working in Russia, G.

Melioranskij published a study analysing several codices in the Moscow

archives. In a work featuring George of Cyprus and John of Jerusalem,

Melioranskij presented two documents along the path to Vladimir 412. This

study is extremely difficult to find. Fortunately, through the scholarship of

1 1 1
Andreas Mitsides, the Melioranskij text has been made available. Using

1 1 1 2
Mitsides studies as a guide, the earlier works of Melioranskij and Kurtz

provide a path to Methodios' work. It has been established in this paper

that all the Methodian texts are related. What has yet to be ascertained is

the existence of a root document.

The first step backwards from Methodios' writings is a work in the

113
Damascene c o r p u s . This work is titled Oratio demonstrative, de sacris et

venerandis imaginibus, ad Christianos omnes, adversusque imperatorem

Constantinum Cabalinum ac haereticos universos. It is also known by the

shortened title Adversus Constantinum Cabalinum, = hence CC. This

composition is recognised as a pseudo Damascene work. Its authenticity is

1 1 4
discussed by Professor V. Anagnostopoulos in his article.

related text is 'H nepi TCSV EIKOVUV SiScraicaAi'a ranpyiou TOU Kurrpiou in Mitsides, A. (1989) H
flAPOYEIA THE EKKAHEIAE KYfTPOY EIE TON AWNA YIJEP TUN EIKONQN - NOY0EEIA
FEPONTOE nEPl TQN AHS2N E1KONQN(University of Athens), Leukosia, pp. 76 - 84.
1 1 1
Ibid., pp. 153 - 192, NouOcoia rspovrog IJepi Tav'Ayfwv EIKOVOV = NouOeafa.
1 1 2
Kurtz, E . (1902) "Review of B. Melioranskij's "Georgios von Kypros...", Byzantinische
Zeitschrift, vol. xi, pp. 538 - 543.
1 1 3
Migne (ed.) Patrologiae cursus completus: Series graeca, vol. 95, cols. 309 - 344.
1 1 4
Anagnostopoulos, B. (1957) "BIOI TOY IfiANNOY TOY AAMAIKHNOY," In OP0OAOSIA, vol.
32, pp. 486 - 494, pp. 492 - 494. Also see Hussey, The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire,
p. 43, note 29.

126
Notwithstanding, these opinions do not apply to our present exploration.

The work, regardless of authorship, will be used as a stepping-stone to

attempt to trace a source; its authenticity in the corpus will not be judged.

When CC is compared with any of the Methodian works analysed above,

the similarities are very apparent. This "Damascene" work was written at

least 85 years prior to the Methodian works. The resemblance between the

two works requires further examination. Great sections of passages are not

just similar, they are word for word copies with the Methodian texts

depending on the earlier work. For the examples cited below, the

Methodian extract that will be used is from Vladimir 412. Approximately

ninety-five percent of Methodios' homily is taken directly from CC. A few

examples of the differences will be shown. One of the most obvious

differences in the opening credal statement is that of the CC does include

the phrase from the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed concerning the

1 1 5
procession of the Holy Spirit. Because CC is a much longer document,

Vladimir 412 lifts portions of it but never violates its sense and continuity.

There are occasions where certain passages are transposed and placed

within the context of other thoughts or they might be eliminated. However,

the wording rarely changes and is primarily identical. For example, the very

beginning of the earlier text has a lengthy introduction prior to the credal

1 1 6
statement. It does not appear in Vladimir 412. Additionally, an example

of variances within the mss record is as follows:

1 1 5
Migne (ed.) Patrologiae cursus completus: Series graeca, vol. 95, col. 312 a: "TO" EK TOO
FlaTpOQ £KTTOp£UO(l£VOC;'"
n 6
Ibid., vol. 95, cols. 309 - 312a.

127
 • C C , P G , vol. 95, col 316d 'H T I ' 8ia<|>£p£i r|
HEUPpdva Tf\c, aav(5og"

• Vladimir 412, [folio 144v], ch.4 OUTW Kdyw

ou TTJV aav(8a OU8E T O V T O ? X O V "

• Vat.gr. 1753 [228v] ...*'TI 8E Sia^cpri r|

PE|ipp£va TTIV aavri8a...Tinu>|i£v OU8E TOV

TUXOV."

• Pitra, p. 359, " T I 8E 8ia(|>£p£i r\ ji£u|3pdva

By comparatively analysing the texts, Vladimir 412 from mid-point [folio

146r] to [147v] we find a condensing of the work of the pseudo-John of

Damascus. Great portions are deleted, other segments are moved and

placed as a composite text. Once again, the wording is the same in most

respects. Even at the end, the Methodian text follows CC with the

1 1 7
exception of the last 4 lines, which is the closing benediction.

In addition to the work of Melioranskij, Kurtz and Mitsides, there is another

more recent contributing voice. That voice is that of Dr. A. Alexakis in his

118
study of Codex Parisinum Graecus 1115. Even though Dr. Alexakis'

primary purpose is to date this codex, some of his analysis is very helpful to

this study. He examines the text of NouOeai'cc and compares it to CC.

Citing both the work of Melioranskij and Mitsides, Alexakis has examined

the following mss. Mosquensis Historici Musei 265 (Vladimir 197) = (M),

1 1 7
Ibid., vol. 95, col. 344b, then s e e Afinogenov, Constantinopolitan Patriarchate - The
Iconoclastic Crisis in Byzantium (784 - 847) - in Russian, p. 188 [folio 147v].
1 1 8
Alexakis, A. (1996) Codex Parisinus Graecus 1115 and Its Archetype, Dumbarton Oaks
Studies (Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection), Washington, pp. 110 - 116.

128
Venetus Marcianus graecus 573 = (V) and his primary source Parisinus

Graecus 1115 = (P). He attempts to work through the question of the

119
relationship of CC with NouGeaia. The caveat he offers is the fact that

conclusive proof cannot be ascertained due to a lack of a critical edition of

1 2 0
CC. Both Mitsides and Alexakis reflect on Melioranskij's work with this

thought.

It is to his credit, also, that he gave a complete list

of passages common to CC and the NouGeaia. He
actually discovered twelve passages with literal
similarities and ten with looser ones, all occurring
121
in the second and third parts of the NouOeaia.

Dr. Alexakis reviews and summarises Melioranskij's conclusion as follows:

The Urtext has to be traced in parts II and III of the

NouGsaia, which were probably written before 754,
since no allusion to the Council of Hiereia exists
therein. The text of the NouOeaia, as it is
transmitted by M, is a later version (ca. 770) of the
pre-754 text with the addition of the introductory
part I, which was possibly written in 765-775.

Gero, Byzantine Iconoclasm During the Reign of Constantine V - with particular attention to
Oriental Sources, pp. 25 - 36.
1 2 0
Alexakis Codex Parisinus Graecus 1115 and Its Archetype, p. 110.
1 2 1
Ibid., p. 111; also s e e MixoT.8eq H I7APOYZIA THE EKKAHIIAI KYTJPOY EIE TON A TUNA
YJ7EP TONEIKONQN- NOY&ELIA rEPONTOZ TIEPI TQN AflilN EIKONQN, p. 74.

129
 As far as CC is concerned, Melioranskij suggested
that the recension found in M - the very codex of
the NouOeaia - was a reworked version of the
Noudema. The text of CC as it is in P was a
rehash of M made in 774, subsequently reordered
and updated in the form of the extended version of
PG in 780-786. Unfortunately, very few of the
suggestions of Melioranskij are of any value today,
and the whole work has to be repeated from the
122
beginning.

One of the factors that must be kept in mind when evaluating the above

opinion is the dates of the reign of Constantine V (Constantinum

1 2 3
Cabalinum). Constantine reigned from 741-775. Following this review,

Alexakis proceeds to compare P to M and finally to CC from P G in a rather

complete fashion. He states:

...we may conclude that there are only two basic

versions of CC: the shorter one that is represented
by P and M which dates from 766 to 770 and the
longer one (PG 95, 309a - 344b) which is a little
later (780-787).

1 2 2
Alexakis, Codex Parisinus Graecus 1115 and Its Archetype, p. 111.
1 2 3
Hussey, The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire, p. xxi.

130
 It has already been explained that the only certain
aspect, as far as the relationship between the
NouOeaia and CC is concerned, lies in their
interdependence. What, in addition, becomes
apparent from the investigation of M and P is that
not only CC, but also the NouOeaia presuppose
the existence of a florilegium from which they draw
quotations and either incorporate parts of or
elaborate on some phrases extracted from them.
In the NouOeaia this dependence is more evident
simply because there are more quotations
124
embedded in it than in CC.

Professor Alexakis cautions that both CC and NouOeaia need current

critical texts. He offers this opinion to the admixture:

But, still, we have no indication whatsoever that the

NouOeaia was known at Rome. So the question
remains open for the editor of these two works,
but, for the time being, the most plausible
suggestion that can be offered is the following.
Assuming that in 766 - 770 there was an
Iconophile florilegium that included the P version of
CC as its introductory piece, the NouOeaia looks
like a cut-and-paste work of somebody who used
this florilegium and CC. The opposite is impossible

Alexakis, Codex Parisinus Graecus 1115 and Its Archetype, p. 114.

131
 because, while M transmits the NouOeaia and CC,
P preserves only CC and there is no reason to
assume that the Roman original of PV included the
125
NouOeaia.

It appears that these codices form one literary tradition. Methodios, as an

educated man, and as the archdeacon to Patriarch Nikephoros may well

have had access to these earlier writings. Considering all this, a conclusion

that may be drawn is that the "Methodian documents" are part of a lengthy

chain of iconophilic literature stretching back long before the Patriarch. The

facility of Methodios may well have been applying these texts to his own

epoch and to the circumstances of the iconophilic victory. Another possible

explanation is that later patriarchal scribes were anxious to credit the

victorious Patriarch Methodios with glorious words in a post iconoclastic

period; they then put these words into the mouth of Methodios to augment

the record.

1 2 6
The Canon of the Sunday of Orthodoxy

1 2 7
The second element of this review is the Canon of the Triumph of

Orthodoxy. The Church rubrics specify for this group of hymns to be

chanted after the Orthros, but before the beginning of the Divine Liturgy.

The author is acknowledged to be Patriarch Methodios even though, the

y a
Ibid., pp. 1 1 5 - 1 1 6 .
126
TpiuSiov KaravuKTiKOV (1900) (K. Antoniadi), Athens, pp. 141 - 1 4 5 .
1 2 7
C r o s s and Livingstone (eds.) The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, p. 230.
Hymnological chant of eight odes or canticles. S e e Cross for a more detailed definition.

132
Canon and Synodicon are grouped together and anachronistically attributed

1 2 8 1 2 9
to Theodore Studite in the body of the text of the Triodion.

Within this composition, Patriarch Methodios praises the return of the icons,

lays blame firmly at the feet of the leaders of the iconoclastic heresy, most

especially, the ecclesiastical leadership and reviews the theological

foundation of the iconodules' victory in poetry. The text is replete with

biblical imagery as well as references to New and Old Testament settings

and characters. It is best to listen to his own words to appreciate his

approach to the observance.

A true manifestation of Divine Grace has shown on

the Oecumeni. To, now, be enlightened with glory
and honour. The Church rejoices receiving the
1 3 0 131
garments for her nakedness. .

Methodios' next few thoughts are directed towards the iconoclasts and he

chastises them for their deviation from the true Traditions of the Church.

Morris, Monks and Laymen in Byzantium 843 - 1118, p. 11, Theodore died 826 AD.
1 2 9
In the introduction of The Lenten Triodion, there is an explanation of the structure of the
Lenten offices used in the Eastern Church.
1 3 0
[Images]
T
131
TpibJSiov KarctvuKTiKov, p. 141 :"'ETTE<|>dvr| dAJiGwQ, 8t(a L
X°P ? 5 OIKOU(IEVII, 5d£a K a i
Tiijiii, TT£<t>av£ pwTai vuv, a K i p T q EKKAr|o(a, hzt,a\ilvT\
/
Tr|v OTOAI^V, IX\C, EauTffi; yunvwaEwq. (OSti
a)"

133
 The tunic of Christ woven so clearly by the Holy
Fathers and given to the Church was torn away by
132
the deceiver and poisoner John the former

As can be seen here, the patriarch utilises the authority of the fathers of the

Church and their legacy to cast down the iconoclasts. Even though, he has

previously mentioned John the Grammarian, he now begins to personalise

the thrust of his assault towards the other leaders of the heresy.

Let the haters, the dreadful Lizix, Antonios along

with John and Theodore, those that denied their
1 3 3
faith, be ashamed and turned back.

Three of the four names listed are iconoclastic hierarchs, who served at

various times during the controversy. They are Antonios I Kassimatas

(January 821 - January 837), John VII the Grammarian (21 January, 837 -

1 3 4 1 3 5
4 March, 843) and Theodore. The fourth name, that of Lizix, is more

enigmatic. An excellent study of Professor Gouillard addresses this

1 3 6
mysterious person who is very much the centre of Methodios' wrath.

Lizix [also known as Zilix] is mentioned in the Chronicles of Genesios and

1 3 2
Ibid., p. 141: "Tov xtTwvct T O O Xpiorou, S i E p ^ n y E ' v o u 6vd TOU nArivou, Kai <t>ap(iaKoupyou.
Iwdwoo ol G E T O I n c n ^ p e i ; ,
Tonpiv, £);u<|>dvaT£(; aa<t><3<;, Tfj EKKAria{a "ESUKOV." John the
Grammarian, the former patriarch .
1 3 3
Ibid., p. 141: " A J x u v O r j T w a a v A O I T T O V , K a i E V T p a n ^ T w o a v UE(iT|vdT£Q, A f j £ ; i £ 6 8 E I V O < ; K a i
'AVTWVIOQ 6rj o u v T<V I w d w r i g K a i 0£d6ti)po<; dji(|>oTv, o l d p r | T a i Tfjq i r i a T E u g . " Methodios of
Constantinople (843), Canon for The Synodikon o f Orthodoxy, trans. Archimandrite Ephrem Lash,
February 2001, http://web.ukonline.co.uk/ephrem.
1 3 4
Grumel, V. and Darrouzes, J . (eds.) (1989) Les Regestes Des Actes Du Patriarcat De
Constantinople (715 -1206), (Institut Francais D'Etudes Byzantines), Paris.
1 3 5
Gouillard, J . (1961) "Deux Figures Mai Connues Du Second Iconoclasme", Byzantion, vol.
XXXI, pp. 371 - 401, pp. 384 - 401. Theodore Krithinos was a clerical leader of the iconoclasts.
He is singled out several times in the Canon by name.
1 3 6
Ibid., s e e above.

134
Theophanes the Continuator as being a protoasecretis of the imperial court.

He is identified as a leader of a heretical sect who subsequently returned to

1 3 7
the Church. His office seemed significant; perhaps Methodios wished to

eliminate him from any possible chance to be elevated in the Church since

on two prior occasions it had been a path to the Patriarchal throne.

Tarasios and Nikephoros each occupied this office, as laymen before their

election as Patriarchs. The examination of the Canon leads to several

questions. Why is Lizix mentioned so many times? Why does Methodios

single out this layman among the heresiarchs? It can be ascertained from

Methodios' Vita and the Synodicon, which will be examined shortly, that in

this era the iconodules related Iconoclasts, Paulicians, Manichaeans and

1 3 8
Lizianoi as practitioners of variations of the same heresy. Methodios is

quoted in his Vita as saying that, "the Manicheans vomited (spewed) out

1 3 9
their venomous poison." The concern that the new patriarch had to

eradicate the possible resurgence of heresy in his time shall be

demonstrated in the chapter centring on Methodios' Ecclesiology. The

trenchant attack on Lizix could have been a defence against the possibility

of this occurring. The Manichaean and Paulician heresies are similar but

not related. Each was a dualistic heresy that was prevalent in Byzantium

during different periods of time, Manicheans in the sixth century and

1 3 7
Lesmueller-Werner, A. et Thurn, I. (eds.) (1978) losephi Genesii -Regum Libri Quattuor
(Walter de Gruyter et Socios), Berolini et Novi Eboraci, p 60: " K e r r ' £ K E T V O 8£ x c t i p o O f\ T<3V
Z r i A i K w v arpcoiq dvt.tydvi\ a u v T(? dpxnyw a u T ( 3 v Z i j A i K i , " O V T I T<3V f 3 a a i A i K < 3 v £v rrpwTOi^
u i T o y p a ^ w v . . " S e e also Theophanes Continuator, pp.161 - 162.
1 3 8
Gouillard, "Deux Figures Mai Connues Du Second Iconoclasme", p. 377. Also s e e Barnard, L.
and Bryer, A. (1975) "The Paulicians and Iconoclasm + * Excursus on Mannanalis, Samosata of
Armenia and Paulician Geography," in Iconoclasm - Papers given at the Ninth Spring Symposium of
Byzantine Studies, eds. A. Bryer and J . Herrin (Centre for Byzantine Studies - University of
Birmingham), Birmingham, UK, pp. 75 - 83, "excursus pp. 83 - 92.
1 3 9
P G , vol. c col. 1256 d.

135
Paulicians in the ninth century. Little is known about the beliefs of the

followers of Lizix.

Returning to the content of the Canon, in the next portion Methodios makes

a comparison that he often made in his writings. One of his favourite Old

Testament notables is Moses. Methodios compares his struggles with that

of the defenders of images. There is a direct relationship made between

"the Lawgiver" and his opponents "the sorcerers from the court of Pharaoh"

1 4 1
and John the Grammarian with Antonios against the iconodules. The

theology of Incarnation and the charge by the iconoclasts of idolatry are

dismissed in the stanza of the Theotokion of the first ode.

Wearing from you the royal robe, 0 Virgin, God

appeared to mortals in human form, double in
142
being; the form of his form we hold in veneration.

In the third ode, the Patriarch alludes to the association of iconoclasm and

their condemnation of the cult of saints in both the form of images and in

the veneration of relics.

Hamilton and Hamilton, Christian Dualist Heresies in the Byzantine World, presents an
overview of the dualistic heresies of Byzantium.
1 4 1
TpicJSiov KaravuKTiKOV, p. 141: "'Iavvfjg KCU 'Iajippfji; d0£aTTiKdT£<; TU5 vo(io8^Trt ndAai
Mwoo-fj.." S e e Exodus 7,11 and II Tim. 3,8.
1 4 2
Ibid., p. 142: "Tiiv paa(A£iov O T O A I I V E K aoO riap9ev£ ®toc, tyoptaac, "u$Qr\ T O T Q P P O T O T ?
dv9po)Tidjiop())og SnrAoOg K C I T ' oiioiav oO T O E T 8 O Q Tfjs nop^fjg, E V TrpoaKUvr|0£i " E X O H E V . "
Methodios of Constantinople, Canon for The Synodikon of Orthodoxy, for trans.

136
 Rejoice with gladness, O church, and every city,
town and village; let the monasteries be opened
and the nunneries adorned. Let them fittingly
1 4 3
worship the relics and icons of the Martyrs

In a stanza of praise for the influence and staunch support of monks for the

iconodule cause, Methodios, no doubt extends a peace branch to the

monastics, like the Studites, who opposed his election.

Assemble rejoicing with boldness, you multitudes

of monks, for though they were evil, strong, the
cowards have again been defeated, and whatever
counsel such men counselled, the Lord will
144
scatter.

The new patriarch then addresses an issue that had been a central point of

discussions at Nicaea II. The issue was that of simoniac clergy. This

problem was so serious it became the subject of several canons emanating

from this Council.

They defiled your Temple with unlawful ordinations

for money, and they have been canonically cast
out and are fallen from divine glory: Simon
145 1 4 6
Magus , and with him John and Antonios.

Ibid., p. 142: ' " A y d M o u i\ ' E K K A T j a f a , K a i Tifioa i r d A i g K a i x ^ p a ^ v

£i)<|>poauvq, d v o i y ^ a G w
vuv Ta daKr|Trjpia, K a i o i irap0£v<Dv£i; K c t M u m ^ E a O e T d A e t y d v a , K a i E i K O v f a p a T a TUSV
M a p T u p w v d ^ f w g n p o a K u v e f o Q w a a v ." Ibid. , for trans.
1 4 4
Ibid., p. 142, Ode 4, Ibid., for trans.
1 4 5
Acts 8, 9 ff. Simon, a magician, offered silver to Peter and John to buy the gift of the Holy
Spirit (through the laying on of hands). Peter castigated him. John the Grammarian and other
iconoclasts are identified with biblical transgressors; also points out the violation of Canons of
Nicaea II.

137
Later in the text of the Canon, Methodios singles out the iconoclastic clergy

and hierarchs for condemnation. He compares their synod [Council of

1 4 7
Hieria-Blachernae] to the Jewish Sanhedrin led by Annas and Caiaphas

that condemned Christ. The ultimate condemnation that awaits these

clergy is that of Judgement Day when Methodios states, the Fathers of the

Church, whom they persecuted, will accuse them. God will then judge

1 4 8
them. Later in ode seven, Methodios calls to mind the destruction of the

icon on the Chalke Gate of the Palace.

Who would not grieve on seeing the outrageous act

of daring, the divine image over the Bronze gate of
the palace, stoned by lawless men on John's
1 4 9
instruction?

The Canon ends with the troparion of the commemoration and a coda.

£ l O T O V a l
TpiwSiov KaravuKTiKov, p. 142: " 'Eufavctv TOV Nadv aou, &Q£O\IOIQ x P ^ 5 &ia
XprindTwv, K a i KOVOVIK<3Q O(3TOI cpt'PArivTai, K a i Tfjg Gtfag 5d£r|Q EKTTEivrwKaaiv, 6 Kuwv 6
\xdyoQ a O v T O U T ^ K a i ' I w d v v r i Q K a i 6 8 £ i v d g ' A V T U S V I O Q . " Methodios of Constantinople Canon for
The Synodikon of Orthodoxy.
1 4 7
John 1 8 , 1 2 ff.
1 4 8
TpiuiSiov KaravuKTiKov, p. 1 4 2 Ode 4 , stanzas 5 - 6 . Methodios of Constantinople Canon for
The Synodikon of Orthodoxy.
1 4 9
Ibid., p. 1 4 4 : T i g uii G p r i v r f a r j T O ntya TdA|iT(iia, Tr)v 6 e ( a v PAE'TTWV n o p ^ v , -rtiv tv Tfj
XaXKfj nuAri T O O r r a A a T i o u , u n d dv5p<3v a v d ^ w v A i G o i g PaAAo|j^vr|v, Tfj SiSaxfl T O O ' I w d v v o u .
Methodios of Constantinople, Canon for The Synodikon of Orthodoxy. Note, n o emperor is
mentioned by name.

138
 We venerate Your most pure icon, loving Lord, as
we ask You to pardon our transgressions, Christ
our God. For by Your own choice You were well
pleased to ascend upon the Cross, in the flesh, so
as to deliver those whom You have fashioned from
the bondage of the enemy. Therefore, in
thanksgiving, we cry to You; You filled all things
with joy, our Saviour, when You came to save the
1 5 0
world.

The didactic character of the greater portion of the Canon, its singling out

specific iconoclast "villains" for condemnation and its sensitivity about

episcopal responsibility brands this work as Methodian in origin. Other

characteristic Methodian literary traits shown were the use of Old

Testament heroes, especially Moses, and his reliance on the patristic

witness as foundational to his perspective.

The Synodicon of the Triumph of Orthodoxy

The condemnations, the acclamations and the proclamations of the

restoration of the faith are preserved in a document called the Synodicon of

1 5 1
Orthodoxy. Most scholars accept it as probably being a composite

1 5 2
document compiled under the direction of Methodios.

1 5 0
Ibid., p . 1 4 5 : " T r | v dtxpav-rov dicdva aou irpoaKuvoO(i£v' A y a 0 £ , a l T o u u e v o i a u v x w p r i a i v T<3V
TrraiapdTwv r|ji(3v XpiaTE 6 Qeoc,, pouArjaEi yap r|05dKr|aag aapKi dvafteAOeiv T<V iTaupi?,"iva
p u a r j ou<; inXaaac, £ K Tfjg 5 O U A E ( C « ; T O U ExSpoO O 8 E V £Uxap(0TU)<; P O W U E V a o r \apd.<; ETTAripwaac;
Td t r d v T a , 6 I w r r i p rjuuiv, T i a p a y E v d j i E v o g EIQ T O oGoai T O V KO"OUOV."

1 5 1
Gouillard, "Le Synodikon d'Orthodoxie: edition et commentaire". T h i s is the definitive study on
the Synodicon. It will be the b a s i s for our text.

1 5 2
Morris, Monks and Laymen in Byzantium 843 - 1118, p p . 9 - 1 0 , notes 1 and 3 .

139
 The term synodicon is applied to an official
definition promulgated by a synod or council, or to
a statement, which has synodical origin or conciliar
authority. The present synodicon was approved
and issued by the Council of 843, which restored
the worship of icons, i.e., it upheld and re-imposed
the authority of the Seventh Ecumenical Council,
which had fallen into abeyance during the
intervening second period of Iconoclasm (815-
842). In the manuscripts, the titles are various:
The Synodicon of Orthodoxy, The Synodicon
Confirming Orthodoxy Read on the First Sunday of
Great Lent, The Synodicon Confirming Orthodoxy,
The Synodicon Against All Heresy, and different
combinations of all the above. In the printed
Triodia, the synodicon is titled The Synodicon of
the Holy and Ecumenical Seventh Council for
Orthodoxy...the Council of 843 did not form any
new definitions, but was concerned to proclaim
again the authority of the Seventh Council and to
re-establish the definition of the Faith propounded
153
there.

Even though the Synodicon of Orthodoxy is the most recognisable of

synodica, there are other variations to the model discussed here. In

addition, the Synodicon of Orthodoxy was, and potentially, can be a "living"

document, meaning that through time, additions have been necessitated by

the demands of history and locale. The Komnenian emperors in the

eleventh and twelfth century amended the Synodicon to fit imperial policy.

1 5 3
"Synodicon of Orthodoxy - in English translation" (2000) The True Vine, Spring Edition, pp. 1 -
108, p. 6, note 5.

140
The Palamite Controversy of the fourteenth century resulted in additions

being placed in the Synodicon. This is an example of how variations come

1 5 4
to the Synodicon because of history. In addition, synodica have been

customised in local areas to condemn heresies that arose and needed to be

coped with by local Churches. As well as acclamations, the Synodicon

contains anathemas. St. Theophan the Recluse has defined these

statements of exclusion, from the Church in this manner,

After all, an anathema is precisely separation from

the Church, or the exclusion from her mists of
those who do not fulfil the conditions of unity with
her and begin to think differently from the way she
does, differently from the way that they themselves
1 5 5
promised to think upon joining her.

The definition above was elaborated and further expounded on by a

modern-day Saint of the Church when he said,

The Catholic and Apostolic Church

anathematizes,' 'let him be anathema' or 'let it be
anathema,' means complete tearing away from the
Church. While in the case of 'separation from the
communion of the Church' or other epitimia or
penances laid on a person, the person himself

Meyendorff, J . (1974) St. Gregory Palamas and Orthodox Spirituality, trans. A. Fiske (St.
Vladimir's Seminary Press), Crestwood, NY., pp. 86 - 106. Gouillard presents a text of the
Synodicon with local variants and then the Palamite segment, Gouillard, "Le Synodikon
d'Orthodoxie: edition et commentaire", pp. 58 ff.
1 5 5
"Synodicon of Orthodoxy - in English translation", Sermon of St. Theophan the Recluse: "What
is an Anathema?" p. 26.

141
 remained a member of the Church, even though
his participation in her grace-filled life was limited.
However, those given over to anathema were
completely torn away from her until their
repentance. Realizing that, in view of their
stubbornness and hardness of heart, she is unable
to do any thing for their salvation, the earthly
Church she lift them up to the judgement of God.
That judgement is merciful unto repentant sinners,
but fearsome for the stubborn enemies of
God...Anathema is not final damnation: until death
1 5 6
repentance is possible.

As was noted, the definitive text used for study of the Synodicon is by J .

1 5 7
Gouillard. Recently, another mss tradition has become known and is

included within these translations of the Synodicon, through the kind

permission of Archimandrite Ephrem Lash. Fr. Lash describes this mss in

his introduction to the Synodicon in this manner:

However, the British Library possesses a

manuscript, (BL. Additional 28816) written in 1110
or 1111 by a monk Andrew of the monastery of
Oleni in Moraea, which may give some idea of the
scope and contents of the original; in the opinion of
Jean Gouillard, the editor of the critical edition of
the Synodikon, "the London manuscript is certainly
one of the best witnesses to the primitive and
purely Constantinopolitan form of the

1 5 8
St. John Maximovitch (1977) "The Word Anathema and its Meaning", Orthodox Life, vol. 2, p.
18.
157 .
Gouillard, "Le Synodikon d'Orthodoxie: edition et commentaire".

142
 1
Synodikon".

As a basis for his translation, Fr. Ephrem used Professor Andrew Louth's

translation of text of the Synodicon plus the additional material from the

British Library text. This will be the backbone of the English version of the

Synodicon presented in this chapter. In this way, the most primitive text of

the Synodicon now available will be analysed. It opens with this preamble:

A yearly thanksgiving is due to God on account of

that day when we recovered the Church of God,
with the demonstration of the dogmas of true
religion and the overthrowing of the blasphemies of
wickedness. Following prophetic sayings, yielding
to apostolic exhortations, and standing of the
foundation of the accounts in the Gospels, we
159
make festival on this day of dedication.

Once again, Methodios approaches the topic of the restoration of icons in

an accustomed pattern. He praises God and returns to his reliance on the

Tradition of the Church as the basis for the victory over the iconoclast. As

this prologue continues, Methodios borrows an analogy from St. Theodore

the Studite and illustrates it with scriptural references. Describing the

epoch of the iconoclasts as a "spiritual winter", this phrase was use by St.

Methodios of Constantinople ( 8 4 3 ) Synodikon of Orthodoxy, trans. Archimandrite Ephrem

L a s h , February 2 0 0 1 , http://web.ukonline.co.uk/ephrem.
1 5 9
Gouillard, "Le Synodikon d'Orthodoxie: edition et commentaire", p. 45: " ' E T T O ^ E I A O I I E V T I npog
0 E O V £-rrjaio<; E i i x a p i O T f a K a 0 ' ffv f)(i£pav diTEAdBouEv Tr)v T O O 0 E O O EKKArjofav a u v d n d 5 £ i 4 £ i
T<3V Tf|g EOa£0£(ag Soyud-rwv K a i K a T a a T p o ^ f j T<3V Tfjg KaK(a<; S u a a E B r m a T w v . npo<)>r|TiKaTq
t n d j i E v o i f i r j o E a i v dirooToAiKaTg T E TTapaiVEOEaiv ETKOVTE<; K a i EuayyEAiKaTc; laTopfaig
<rroix£iou|iEvoi, T U V E y K a i ' v i w v Tr)v riiafpav E o p T a ^ o u E v . " Translation verified by reference to
Methodios of Constantinople, Synodikon of Orthodoxy.

143
Gregory Nanzianzus in the fourth century in his 44 Oration to describe the

end of heresies in his own time. Methodios praises the new season Spring.

For there was a winter with us - a long hard

winter, and not just a fleeting season - one of
great wickedness, spewing out savagery, but
now there has blossomed forth for us the first
of seasons the spring of the graces of God, in
which we have gathered together to make a
thank-offering God, a harvest of good works;
or, to express it rather in the words of the
Psalm: "Summer and spring, you have made
160
them, remember t h i s . "

Perhaps, this identification with the Studite leader is another attempt by the

Patriarch to identify his policies with Theodore's sentiments. It could also

be interpreted as a salute to Theodore for his defiance to iconoclasm.

Nonetheless, Methodios, once again, borrows words recognisable to his

audience. They can perceive a connection to the tradition of resistance to

heresy and to the Triumph. The prologue closes with these words:

For in the icons, we see the sufferings of our

Master for us: the Cross, the grave, Hades slain
and pillaged; we see the contest of the martyrs, the
crowns, that very salvation, which our first Prize-
giver and Contest-master and Crown bearer
wrought in the midst of the earth. This festival we
celebrate today; together, we rejoice and are glad

1 6 0
Ibid., p. 45, Psalm 73, 17 (XII), C a t e c h e s e s 68 of Theodore Studite. S e e Gregory Nanzianzus,
P G , vol. xxxvi, col. 612, line 42.

144
 therein with prayers and processions, and we cry
1 6 1
out with psalms and hymns.

The beginning declaration of the Synodicon is a quotation that is commonly

used to introduce proclamations of the faith. Taken from Psalm 76 the text,

which is also the text of the Great Prokimenon of the vespers of Feasts of

Christ begins,

Who is as great God as our God? Thou art our

God who alone workest wonders! T i g 0£d<; n£ycc<;
wg 6 0EOC; rj|i<3v; au £ i T
6 0£og r||jt3v 6 TTOIWV
r» / 162
0 a u ( i a a i a \iovoq.

The opening stanza of the body of the Synodicon again evokes the figure of

1 6 3
Moses and continues with a series of acclamations that are summarised

below,

To those who confess the incarnate presence of

God the Word by word, by mouth, in the heart, and
164
the mind by writing and in images: ....

May Their Memory be Eternal!

1 8 1
Ibid., p. 47, Methodios of Constantinople (843), Synodikon of Orthodoxy, trans. Archimandrite
Ephrem L a s h , February 2001, http://web.ukonline.co.uk/ephrem.
1 6 2
Psalm 76, 1 4 - 1 5 ( L X X ) .
1 6 3
Gouillard, "Le Synodikon d'Orthodoxie: edition et commentaire", p. 49: «MaioaiKfj TIVI
u i u r j a E i . . in imitation of M o s e s » .
1 6 4
Methodios of Constantinople (843) Synodikon of Orthodoxy, trans. Archimandrite Ephrem
Lash, February 2001, http://web.ukonline.co.uk/ephrem.

145
 To those that discern the distinction of [the two]
essences in the one and the same hypostasis of
Christ, and who attribute to it the properties of
being created and uncreated, visible and invisible,
capable of suffering beyond suffering,
circumscribable and uncircumscribable; and who
attribute to the divine essence of uncreatedness
and the rest, while they acknowledge in the human
nature the other qualities including being
circumscribed, and affirm all this both in word and
1 6 5
in images.

May Their Memory be Eternal!

Methodios goes on to acclaim those who transmitted the messages of the

Tradition whether in sight or sound. He ties the use of icons with the living

Tradition of the Catholic faith.

To those who know and accept and believe the

prophetic visions, as the Divine Himself gave them
shape and form which the choir of the Prophets
behold and explain; and who, strengthen the
written and unwritten Tradition of the Apostles,
continuing to the Fathers, therefore express holy
1 6 6
things in Holy Images and honour them.

May their memory be Eternal!

1 6 5
Ibid., p. 49. trans. Ibid.
1 6 6
Gouillard, "Le Synodikon d'Orthodoxie: edition et commentaire", p. 51, trans. Methodios of
Constantinople, Synodikon of Orthodoxy.

146
In the next stanza, Methodios returned to his reference to the experience of

Moses on Mt. Horeb. He reminds all that Moses was not allowed to see

1 6 7
God's Glory, face to face. He contrasted this to the reality of the

disciples, as they encountered Jesus, Our Lord, during his earthly ministry.

This differentiation stressed two incidences during Christ's ministry. The

1 6 8
Apostles experienced the "Glorified" Christ at the Transfiguration and

after the Resurrection, they were able to perceive tangibly, and visibly the

1 6 9
reality of the Incarnation and Christ's Glorified Body. This is used as a

proof that icons are justified in the Church.

The next passage of the Synodicon is perhaps the most recognisable. It is

read in its entirety in the annual commemoration of this feast on the first

Sunday of Great Lent, the Triumph of Orthodoxy. It has come to be known

as the:

167
Exodus 33 - 34 ( LXX).
1 6 8
Math. 17, 1 - 9; Mk. 9, 2 - 10; Lk. 9, 28 - 36.
1 6 9
S e e the following eleven Eothina Gospel [ Dawn Gospels] readings, they describe Christ's
eleven post-Resurrectional appearances. Math. 28, 16 - 20; Mark 16, 1 - 8; Mark 16, 9 - 20; Lk.
24, 1 - 12; Lk. 24, 1 2 - 3 5 ; Lk. 24. 3 6 - 5 3 ; J n . 20, 1 - 2 0 ; J n . 20, 1 1 - 1 8 ; J n . 20, 19 - 3 1 ; J n . 21,
1 - 4 ; J n . 21, 1 5 - 2 5 .

147
 Affirmation of the Orthodox Faith

As the Prophets beheld, as the Apostles have

taught, as the Church has received, as the
Teachers have dogmatised, as the Universe has
agreed, as Grace has shown forth, as Truth has
revealed, as Falsehood has been dissolved, as
Wisdom has presented, as Christ has awarded!
Thus, we declare! - Thus, we assert - Thus, we
preach honouring Christ our true God and
honouring His Saints; in words, in writings in
thoughts, in sacrifices, in churches, in holy icons;
worshipping and revering the One as God and
Lord; and honouring them because of their
common Lord as those who are close to Him and
His true servants of the same Lord of all, and
accordingly offering them relative veneration.
This is the Faith of the Apostles, this is the Faith of
the Fathers, This is the Faith of the Orthodox, this
1 7 0
is the Faith that has sustained the Universe.

In the next sections, the litanies resume centring on the venerable

patriarchs. They are proclaimed.

These preachers of true religion, we praise as

brothers and as those we long to have as our
fathers, to the glory and honour of the true religions
for which they struggled, and say:

Ibid., p. 51 trans. Methodios of Constantinople, Synodikon of Orthodoxy.

148
 To Germanos, Tarasios, Nikephoros and
Methodios true hierarchs of God and champions
and teachers of Orthodoxy.

[Obviously added later] Ignatius and Photios. The

other patriarchal names appearing in this edition
are Stephanos, Antonios and Nicholas.

1 7 1
May their memory be Eternal!

Then a couplet of anathemas ensue condemning writings or spoken

opposition to these fathers. This is an obvious reference to the written

criticisms of the iconoclasts and incidentally one by Theodore the Studite.

He wrote condemning Tarasios and Nikephoros. One very essential point

is that Theodore, himself, is not condemned, only his pamphlet against

Tarasios and Nikephoros. These writings are not singled out but are

bunched with "All that was written or spoken against the holy Patriarchs..."

the next stanza states:

On every innovation and action contrary to the

tradition of the Church, and the teaching and
pattern of the holy and celebrated Fathers, or
172
anything that shall be done after this: Anathema!

This may very well be the heart of the Synodicon. This is a condemnation

of anyone who has received and understood the doctrines of the Church's

Tradition, but refused to pass on unsoiled what they received.

1 7 1
Ibid., p. 51, trans. Ibid.
1 7 2
Ibid., p. 53, trans. Ibid.

149
Consequently, they violate the Father's legacy and the Tradition of the

Church. A s will be confirmed, this s a m e thought is repeated later in the

Synodicon. No one individual is singled out by name now, but that will

begin after the praise for the h e r o e s of the Iconodules.

Methodios commemorates the c o n f e s s o r and martyr St. Stephen the

Younger, who w a s one of the few iconodules who lost his life at the h a n d s

1 7 3
of an iconoclastic emperor. T h e next groups of n a m e s are together in

sets and reflect an orderly ranking according to C h u r c h protocol. Firstly,

the hierarchs, who suffered at the h a n d s of the iconoclasts, yet they

remained true to Orthodoxy, are honoured.

T o Euthymios, Theophilos, Emilianos the ever -

memorable C o n f e s s o r s and Archbishops.

1 7 4
May their Memory be eternal!

T h e n , prelates, who a p p e a r to have been living at the time of the restoration

of the icons in d e s c e n d i n g ecclesiastical rank, Metropolitans, A r c h b i s h o p s

and to "all bishops who were of like mind with them," were

175
commemorated.

1 7 3
Auz6py, La Vie d'Etienne le Jeune par Etienne le Diacre, pp. 169 - 170. The emperor was
Constantine V.
1 7 4
Gouillard, "Le Synodikon d'Orthodoxie: edition et commentaire", p. 53. The Confessor
Euthymios, Archbishop of Sardis, was a friend of Methodios. The Patriarch had earlier written
Euthymios' Vita: s e e chapter on Works of Methodios.
1 7 5
Ibid., p. 53.

150
Methodios begins his next s e r i e s of commemorations by singling out the

individual l e a d e r s of the monastic communities for r e m e m b r a n c e s and

prayers. He starts with Theodore the Studite, to whom he devotes an entire

1 7 6 1 7 7
stanza. He continues with I s a a c the miracle - worker, loannikios the

Great prophetic, with Hilary the Abbot of Dalmatos, S y m e o n the Stylite, and

1 7 8
finally, T h e o p h a n e s the abbot of the Great Agros. The interesting

feature of this section is the fact that many of the leading monastic c e n t r e s

are represented, along with their venerable spiritual father who is

specifically honoured. Apparently Methodios w a s trying to recognise the

contribution of the monastics and to "build bridges" to this element of the

ecclesiastical power b a s e s of Constantinople, who might very well h a v e

1 7 9
been disappointed with his elevation to patriarch.

Resuming a sequence of anathemas, Methodios reviles the self-

c o n d e m n e d action of the iconoclasts. In e a c h p h r a s e , the adjectives and

descriptions used are very revealing of the patriarch's theological

fundamentals. T h e central focus, at this point, is the effect that the deviant

teachings of the iconoclasts had on the fabric of life within the C h u r c h , on

the individuals of the C h u r c h and the distortion that the iconoclasts sought

to create in Holy Tradition. A s in earlier p a s s a g e s , the iconoclastic

teachings are tied to the denial of the Incarnation of Christ and to the truths

1 7 6
By listing Theodore first, Methodios is obviously publicly honouring and acknowledging
Theodore's leadership. In addition, this can be interpreted a s an "olive branch" to the Studites.
1 7 7
Morris, Monks and Laymen in Byzantium 843-1118., p. 10, s e e note 3.
1 7 8
Janin, Les Sglises et les monasteres des grands centres Byzantins, pp. 195 - 199. This is
Theophanes the Confessor, who also is the topic of a Vita by Methodios (a.k.a. Theophanes the
Chronographer), s e e chapter on works.
1 7 9
Genesios, p. 58.

151
that are revealed in the images. T h e e x a m p l e s of the language that

Methodios applied in this section illustrate his motivation,

T h e s e blessings have p a s s e d down from them to

u s , a s from fathers to s o n s who are z e a l o u s for

1 8 0
their piety, and c u r s e s overwhelm the parricides

and who d e s p i s e the Master's commandments.

Therefore we, the community of piety, publicly

impose on them the curse, which they have

brought upon t h e m s e l v e s . Anathema!

O n t h o s e who wickedly make play with the word

'uncircumscribed' and therefore refuse to depict in

images Christ, our true G o d , who likewise s h a r e d

our flesh and blood, and therefore show

1 8 1
t h e m s e l v e s to be fantasiasts: A n a t h e m a !

T h e n finally, their h e r e s y w a s labelled j i a M o v X p i a T o j i d x ^ cmoaTao-ia.

1 8 0
Here Methodios a c c u s e s the heretics of the "crime of murder against the Fathers."
1 8 1
Gouillard, "Le Synodikon d'Orthodoxie: edition et commentaire", p. 55, lines 138 - 144
"Phantasiasts" refer to Docetists an early Christian heresy that Methodios related to the anti-
material aspect of iconoclasm.
1 8 2
Ibid., p. 55, line 158: "...or rather the apostasy that defies Christ."

152
 O n those who remain in the icon-fighting h e r e s y , or

rather the Christ-fighting a p o s t a s y , and neither

wish to be led to their salvation through the Mosaic

legislation, nor choose to live piously in

accordance with apostolic teaching, nor are

p e r s u a d e d to turn from their error by the advice

a n d exhortations of the F a t h e r s , nor are a b a s h e d

by the harmony of every part of the e c u m e n i c a l

C h u r c h of G o d , but once and for all have s u b j e c t e d

t h e m s e l v e s to the lot of the J e w s and the p a g a n s

[lit: G r e e k s ] ; for immediately they have uttered

b l a s p h e m i e s against the Archetype, and h a v e not

blushed to dare to make the image of the

archetype identical with the archetype himself. O n

those therefore, who h a v e h e e d l e s s l y a c c e p t e d this

error, and have stuffed their e a r s against very

divine word and spiritual teaching, a s they are

already putrified, and cut t h e m s e l v e s off from the

1 8 3
common body of the C h u r c h Anathema!

This passage enables an understanding of the e s s e n t i a l thrust of

Methodios' argument. Once more, he enumerates in the most

comprehensible manner, the prerequisites for "Orthodoxy". Adhering to the

precepts of the L a w , following the teachings of the A p o s t l e s , the instruction

of the F a t h e r s and agreement with the faith of the Catholic C h u r c h is the

only path to p u r s u e . Methodios reminds the iconoclasts that they had

e x c i s e d t h e m s e l v e s from the body of the C h u r c h , and attached t h e m s e l v e s

to alien doctrines.

Ibid., lines 1 6 0 - 170.

153
T h e a n a t h e m a s now begin again. T h e n a s e r i e s of iconoclasts are singled

out for individual a n a t h e m a s ; they include A n a s t a s i o s of Constantinople,

Constantine and Niketas, iconoclasts during the Isaurian reign. The

ensuing anathema is reserved for the three iconoclastic patriarchs,

Theodotus, Antonios and, John. T h e y are called evil-doers and polluted

t e a c h e r s who s u c c e e d e d e a c h other impiously on the patriarchal throne.

Paul [who Methodios vituperatively calls Saul], Theodore Gastes,

1 8 4
S t e p h a n o s Molytes, Theodore Krithinos, and Lalontios L e o n t u s .

...and to whoever r e s e m b l e s the aforementioned in

uttering impiety to whatever rank of the clergy or

any other honour or w a y of life they belong; and on

1 8 5
all of t h e s e who continue in impiety.

T h e r e is a gap in the chronology of text, in which the C h u r c h inserted

c e n s u r e s of different h e r e s i e s throughout the centuries. T h e n , we return to

1 8 6
Methodios' text. The series of anathemas are short, jabbing

denunciations of the iconoclasts.

T o All the heretics ... A n a t h e m a

T o T h e insolent council against the holy images.

Anathema...

T o those who u s e the writings of holy writ against

idol worship against holy images of Christ our G o d

and His saints. Anathema.

1 8 4
Ibid., p. 57, trans. Methodios of Constantinople Synodikon of Orthodoxy.
1 8 5
Ibid., p. 57. This is the closest condemnation of "public or court officials" in the text of the
Synodicon, trans. Ibid.
1 8 6
Gouillard, "Le Synodikon d'Orthodoxie: edition et commentaire", p. 57, line 179 skips to p. 93,
line 752, trans. Methodios of Constantinople, Synodikon of Orthodoxy.

154
 T o those who s h a r e the opinion of those who insult

and dishonour the august images. Anathema.

. . . T o those that dare to s a y that the Universal

C h u r c h ever a c c e p t e d idols, thus undermining the

whole Mystery [of the Incarnation] and insulting the

1 8 7
Christian faith. A n a t h e m a .

T h e prayers for r e m e m b r a n c e s r e s u m e . T h e y centre on the imperial

household of Michael III, the young emperor and E m p r e s s T h e o d o r a , his

mother. The subsequent editions of the Synodicon commemorate

1 8 8
emperors that follow Michael. T h e closing p a s s a g e s of the Synodicon

can be found later in Gouillard's edited text. After commemorating the

Patriarchal c h a m p i o n s of the iconodules and a long list of l e a d e r s of the

C h u r c h by n a m e , the closing prayer is offered:

T h e Holy Trinity h a s glorified them!

B e s e e c h i n g G o d to affirm and acknowledge their

struggles and the dogmas they guarded even unto

death for the c a u s e of the true religion. Make us

supplicants, complete imitators of their divine

behaviour until the end, s o that we might be called

by the c o m p a s s i o n and grace of the great and first

hierarch, Christ our true God, through the

intercessions of our beyond glorious Lady,

T h e o t o k o s and E v e r Virgin Mary, the G o d - formed

1 8 9
a n g e l s and all the saints.

1 8 7
Gouillard, "Le Synodikon d'Orthodoxie: edition et commentaire", p. 93, lines 752 - 766, trans.
Methodios of Constantinople, Synodikon of Orthodoxy.
1 8 8 th
Gouillard's text is a composite of several, with the earliest approximately 1 1 Century.
1 8 8
Gouillard, "Le Synodikon d'Orthodoxie: edition et commentaire", p. 107.

155
In examining the text of the entire Synodicon, s o m e judgements c a n be

drawn. No doubt, the i s s u e of the d e c e a s e d emperor must h a v e been on

the mind of Methodios. T h i s is c l e a r from the a n a t h e m a s of the S u n d a y of

Orthodoxy at which Theophilos, a s well a s the n a m e s of the other

iconoclastic emperors, are omitted. He c o n d e m n s clergy by name.

Undoubtedly to Methodios, they are worthy of being anathematised for their

deviation from the Tradition of the C h u r c h , which they had received,

unsoiled but transmitted polluted with h e r e s y . T h i s special treatment by the

new patriarch e v e n though it might be looked upon a s politically inspired,

may also be viewed in light of the special responsibility of the sacerdotal

grace and its vocation to protect the dogma of the catholic faith. In light of

the fact that Methodios himself w a s a c o n f e s s o r for the faith, he m a y h a v e

considered this path the only path for all the true clergy. Many of the

specifically n a m e d iconodules had taken the path of suffering rather than

relenting to pressure, torture or intimidation and denying the faith.

Methodios offers up the n a m e s of iconoclasts a s e x a m p l e s of evil men who

had been d e c e i v e d and led the C h u r c h into a p o s t a s y . B e c a u s e , of this,

they d e s e r v e d A n a t h e m a !

T h e s e liturgical e x p r e s s i o n s framed the conclusion of the celebration of the

Triumph of Orthodoxy. T h e singing and chanting would be r e m e m b e r e d ,

even until our time. T h e new Patriarch now f a c e d three difficult y e a r s ,

ahead. He had suffered for the faith and h a d shown resilience and

courage; he would n e e d all t h e s e traits to s h e p h e r d Christ's flock back from

apostasy.

156
 Chapter Three

THE C O N S E Q U E N C E S O F THE RESTORATION O F ICONS

After the Triumph

Following the S u n d a y of Orthodoxy c a m e the task of restoring order,

stability and p e a c e to the C h u r c h . "First the new patriarch, Methodios,

recalled the bishops who had been exiled b e c a u s e of the iconophile beliefs

1
and had suffered during the iconoclastic upheavals." The Vita of St.

Michael Synkellos testifies to the next m e a s u r e s in this manner,

After t h e s e events had taken place, [Methodios'

election] he himself also c o n d e m n e d the heretics

with c o u n t l e s s a n a t h e m a and after a purge among

all the clergy, he liberated the C h u r c h of G o d from

2
their tyranny.

S o m e s c h o l a r s believe the main objective of the new patriarch w a s to free

the C h u r c h from the spectre of a return to iconoclasm. Others judge the

motivation of Methodios a s a desire to impose discipline on the iconoclastic

clergy. Afinogenov believes that Methodios' plan w a s a systematic h o u s e

1
White, D. S . (1981) Patriarch Photios of Constantinople - His Life, Scholarly Contributions and
Correspondence with a translation of Fifty two of his Letters, Archbishop lakovos Library of
Ecclesiastical and Historical Sources no. 5 (Holy C r o s s Orthodox P r e s s ) , Brookline, MA, p. 18.
2
Cunningham, The Life of Michael the Synkellos - Text, Translation and Commentary, p. 105.

157
cleaning of all clergy who had opposed T a r a s i o s and Nikephoros and their

3
policies.

What history acknowledges is that the new Patriarch immediately

encountered problems with this effort. Dvornik d e s c r i b e s his effort with

t h e s e words,

Anxious to preserve the p e a c e of the C h u r c h and

to forestall the possibility of a revival of h e r e s y ,

Methodios studiously avoided appointing partisans

of Extremist's views to any vacant s e e and c h o s e

the candidates exclusively from among the

partisans of the Moderate party. And recent

4
experience justified his policy.

Karlin-Hayter cites the opinion of Grumel on this s a m e subject. She

e x p r e s s e s his view, with which s h e v o i c e s complete agreement:

Moderate and extremist are somewhat ambiguous

terms in Dvornik's work, but they are u s e d here

expressly to indicate an attitude of greater or l e s s e r

severity towards the former Iconoclast hierarchy.

Grumel, however at the s a m e time, in a most

carefully substantiated article, c a m e to the

3
Afinogenov, D. E . (1996) " K n N I T A N T I N O Y n O A I Z | E n i Z K O n o N | E X E I Part III - The Great Purge
of 843: A Re-Examination," in AEIMQN - Studies Presented to Leinert Ryd6n on his Sixty -Fifth
Birthday, vol. 6, ed. J . O. Rosenqvis (Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis - Studia Byzantina
Upsaliensia), Uppsala, pp. 7 9 - 9 1 , p. 90. All these conclusions will be examined in the remainder
of this study.
4
Dvornik, The Photian Schism, History and Legend, p. 13.

158
 opposite conclusion: 'Methode fut du parti de la
5
severite.' - [Methodios, took the part of severity ]

T h e r e c a n , I think, be no doubt that Grumel is

6
right.

How c a n s u c h respected r e s e a r c h e r s conclude s u c h divergent perceptions

and how can they be reconciled? The contemporary sources, an

understanding of the practices of his day, the actions of Methodios and the

reactions that they provoked, no doubt will lead to a better insight of the

dynamics of t h e s e events and of this period. O n e thing that is known

conclusively is the patriarch's actions b e c a m e the s o u r c e of conflict

7
between Methodios and old foes of the patriarchal office, the Studites.

The Vitae of both Methodios and loannikios offer s o m e c l u e s to the

concepts that guided the p r o c e s s of dealing with lapsed hierarchs, clergy

and laymen. If the d i s c o u r s e taken from his Vita is to be seriously believed,

Methodios w a s , at first, inclined to be forgiving. Before the S u n d a y of

8
Orthodoxy, Methodios revealed a lenient q u a l i t y , but there may h a v e b e e n

other opinions that influenced his thinking.

T h e r e are two s o u r c e s that can identify the impact of St. loannikios on the

decision-making p r o c e s s of Methodios. E v e n though loannikios w a s n a m e d

5
This relative term will be explored in the body of this work.
6
Karlin-Hayter, "Gregory of Syracuse, Ignatios and Photios", p. 141, cites Grumel in note 3 for
his reasons. This includes that with loannikios' aid Methodios planned a complete purge.
7
v. Dobschtiiz, E. (1909) "Methodios und die Studiten", Byzantinische Zeitschrift, vol. 18, pp. 41-
105.
8
P G . , vol. c, cols. 1254 c - 1256 c , quoted from in previous chapter.

159
a s the origin of the prophetic advice to Methodios, it is relatively a s s u r e d

that loannikios w a s the s p o k e s m a n for a segment within the monastic

9
communities outside the capital. T h e s e monks were a counter balance to

the influence of the Studites and their supporters. T h e two different V/fae of

loannikios bear witness to this tug-of-war. It h a s been established that the

Vita by Peter, the monk, w a s the earliest written and is indicative of an anti-

Studite timbre. In this account, loannikios states clearly to an a s s e m b l y of

seventy bishops, clerics, monks who joined Methodios in visiting the aged

monk:

Of old the great Anthony bade his disciples to h a v e

no communion with Arians, nor with Meletian

s c h i s m a t i c s , nor with their anti-Christian faction.

And now behold, I, unworthy <as I am> and lowly

and uneducated, a m likewise moved by G o d and

s a y to you: s e p a r a t e y o u r s e l v e s , all of you, from

impious heretics, and the most abominable

Studites and their colleague K a k o s a m b a s and the

lapsed bishop of Nikomedeia, Monomachos or

rather opponent of G o d , and the most irrational

e u n u c h of the C h u r c h of K y z i k o s . For they s p o k e

great n o n s e n s e against G o d and against our father

the pre-eminent patriarch...Those who did not

shudder to do these things to the fathers and the

holy patriarchs who have gone before, have

t h e m s e l v e s b e c o m e therefore by their own action a

9
Darrouzes, J . (1987) "Le patriarche Methode contre les iconoclastes et les studites", Revue des
6tudes byzantines, vol. 45, pp. 15 - 57, p. 54. Darrouzes identifies Symeon and Hilarion a s abbots
who were allies of loannikios.

160
 s c a n d a l to the church of G o d , and sons of the

wicked one and tares. If anyone, therefore, d o e s

not a c c e p t the great Methodios a s patriarch, like

the great Basil, and the theologian Gregory and the

divine C h r y s o s t o m , let him be a n a t h e m a . And if

a n y o n e cuts himself off from communion with him

[Methodios], he will be cut off from the glory of G o d

on the Day of Judgment, and he who rends the

catholic and apostolic church will be cut asunder,

a s the gospel < s a y s > , and his portion appointed

10
with the unfaithful.

T h e s e c o n d Vita of loannikios penned by the monk S a b a s borrows from

1 1
Peter's text, but S a b a s w a s more sympathetic to Studite interests.

Darrouzes quotes Methodios in a section from S a b a s ' Vita of loannikios as

saying,

W e also know the most truthful appeal that the

saint of the desert m a d e to me and to those

accompanying me to the place two y e a r s ago: 'if

you accept the heretics a s ministers and priests,

expect that through them you introduce into the

C h u r c h not only J u d a i s m , but also P a g a n i s m . T h i s

1 2
w a s s a i d then by the loannikios the Great.

1 0
Peter the monk, (1998) "Life of St. loannikios," In Byzantine Defenders of Images - Eight
Saint's Lives in Translation, ed. A. M. Talbot, trans. D. F. Sullivan (Dumbarton O a k s R e s e a r c h
Library and Collection), Washington, D.C., pp. 243 - 353, pp. 342 - 344.
1 1
Mango, C . (1983) "The Two Lives loannikos And The Bulgarians", Okeanos (Harvard Ukrainian
Studies), vol./part 7, pp. 393 - 404, pp. 393 - 394. Mango concludes that the Vita by S a b a s was
written during the patriarchate of Ignatios. This was the reason for the tone, which is considered
more conciliatory to the Studite point of view.
1 2
Darrouzes, "Le patriarche Methode contre les iconoclastes et les studites", p. 54: ""Eyvwjitv 5 E
Kai T O TTpoq a i i T o v l\ik Kai T O O I ; a u n n a p o v T a g \xoi Korrd x " P
A V
AaAr|0Ev napd T O O tprmiKou
dyfou npo xpdvwv 8uoTv d^r|0£aTaTov TTpoa<|>(i)VTi|ia, ( i f E ( T O U Q alp£TiKoi)Q AEiToupyouc; T E

Kai I E P E T C ; , O O j i d v o v iou5alaudv, dAAd Kai iAAriviajxdv 5i 'OI3T<3V i r p o a d ^ a i T f j 'EKKArioia

drr£K8^xou. TaflTa Adyw TdTE E C T T O V T O I ; T O O ueydAou 'I<oavviK(ou."

161
An important consideration that must be taken into account w h e n Vitae from

this period are u s e d to gain historical insight is the "perspectives and

motivations" of the authors of the V/rae. T h e recognition that there were

"agendas", which included the projection of one group against another or

the glorification of one individual or viewpoint, is essential; s o that the

examiner c a n evaluate the content and context of a s o u r c e . This caveat

will be d i s c u s s e d further in the chapter discussing Methodian works.

An essential element for Methodios w a s the development of parameters for

dealing with the recalcitrant clergy. T h e Patriarch w a s formulating his

official policy. T h e r e were s e v e r a l precedents that he could rely on from the

1 3
napd5oai<; of the C h u r c h , a s it had dealt with h e r e s y in the past.

The AidTct£i<; - rubrics written for the r e - a c c e p t a n c e of iconoclastic heretics

back into the good g r a c e s of the C h u r c h are an indication of the guiding

principles set down by the Patriarch. T h e s e prayers and instructions were

without a doubt, either written by Methodios or written under his direct

1 4
guidance. Both the excellent monograph by Miguel Arranz dissecting and

1 5
commenting on the re-reception p r o c e s s and the Barbarini codex are

useful for this study.

1 3
fJapdSoaic is defined a s the Tradition of the Church handed down from generation to
generation. The transmission and safeguarding of this treasure was and is the responsibility of the
hierarchs. The impact of this on Methodios' thinking and actions will be fully developed in the
chapter on his ecclesiology.
1 4
Arranz "La « D i a t a x i s » du patriarche Methode pour la reconciliation des Apostats".
1 5
Goar, J . (ed.) (1960) (1730) Euchologion Sive Rituale Greacorum, (Unveranderter Abrdruck),
Venedig, Austria, pp. 689 - 704.

162
E v e n a cursory a n a l y s i s of the prayers in context, reveal that Methodios

discerned the degree of the a p o s t a s y , classified the restoration of the

heretics and required varying p e n a n c e s for their return. T h e s e categories

are listed below:

Children before the age of reason or those

individuals not responsible for their actions.

Individuals who had s u c c u m b e d to torture or

physical violence a s well a s young adults and the

elderly.

Adults who had voluntarily a c c e p t e d the heretical

teaching and apostatised were divided into two

groups. T h e first w a s re-admitted after two y e a r s

of p e n a n c e followed by the prayers of expiation.

T h e s e c o n d category w a s only admitted back to

1 6
communion at the hour of d e a t h .

Within t h e s e rubrics, Methodios provided requirements a s a s e q u e n c e of

preparation for e a c h candidate and then outlined explicit prayers and

pieties for the actual reintegration into the life of the C h u r c h . Before this

p r o c e s s could begin, there w a s one prerequisite, a s i n c e r e utTdvoia. 1 7

As

will be demonstrated later in this chapter, the only one who could determine

this sincerity w a s the local bishop. In Constantinople, the local bishop w a s

Methodios. Following Methodian guidelines, Arranz divided the p r o c e s s

1 6
Arranz, " L a « D i a t a x i s » du patriarche Methods pour la reconciliation des Apostats", p. 286.
r d
The final group follows the patristic Tradition established by the 7 3 Canon of St Basil of C a e s a r e a
Percival (ed.) A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church The
Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church, vol. 14, p. 609. "He that denied Christ is to
be communicated at the hour of death, if he confess it, and be a mourner till that time."
1 7
Is defined a s repentance or change of heart upon reflection.

163
into three s t e p s . First, e a c h individual w a s placed into a category for

readmission to communion. S e c o n d , the prayers of expiation, their order

and form were recited. Thirdly, the form and the prayers of anointing with

Holy C h r i s m are given. T h i s p r o c e s s would readmit each repentant

member back into communion with the C h u r c h .

Considering the details of t h e s e practices, the first group were children who

were forced by their parents, unable to resist falling into a p o s t a s y b e c a u s e

of fear or due to their inability to discern the false way resulting in an

unconscious a c c e p t a n c e of the heresy. T h e s e p e r s o n s were dealt with in a

most gentle way. O n c e a day for s e v e n d a y s if they were able, they were

1 8
required to recite a prayer of expiation. O n the eighth day, they were

brought to the C h u r c h , bathed, prayed over, anointed with jaupov (Chrism),

1 9
, and then they were d r e s s e d in a new white garment in the m a n n e r of the

2 0
Baptismal rite. T h e y were then admitted into full communion once a g a i n .

T h e next group w a s also dealt with rather gently. T h i s group included

young people and senior citizens. Prior to the actual day of readmission,

they were to prepare spiritually by fasting for two forty-day periods and

recite penitential prayers on "bended knee and continual supplications."

T h e additional pre-ritual preparation included eight d a y s reciting prayers of

This is a parallel to the blessing of a newborn on the eighth day of their life.
1 9
Myron is a fragrant oil compound used to anoint a candidate during the Sacrament of
Chrismation. It is symbolic of the descent of the Holy Spirit on the individual. This is regarded a s a
personal Pentecost.
2 0
Arranz, " L a « D i a t a x i s » du patriarche Methode pour la reconciliation des Apostats", pp. 288 -
289.

164
 a n d a f t e r
expiation along with one hundred Kupi£ EAETIO-OV, this

preparation, t h e s e individuals were brought to the C h u r c h . T h e y were

bathed, anointed with C h r i s m ; subsequently they celebrated Liturgy and

received Communion. This was repeated for a total of eight days

2 1
consecutively in the manner of the O u m d ; d | i £ v o i (newly enlightened).

T h e patriarch must have considered the last group a s the most difficult to

rehabilitate. It w a s divided into two s e g m e n t s , e a c h group with a differing

procedure for their p e n a n c e . By category, t h e s e were adults who had freely

c h o s e n the path of heretical teachings. T h e first group w a s judged in a

more lenient manner than the latter. T o return to the flock of Christ they

were required to do p e n a n c e for a period of two y e a r s . This penance

consisted of a strict fast. Additionally, one hundred d e e p prostrations with

penitential prayers and two hundred "Lord H a v e Mercy" were mandated

daily. T h i s last provision contained a c a v e a t , " £i 5e d5uvcrroi Kcrrd

2 2
8u(vctmv). Only at the conclusion of this rigorous preparation were the

candidates then afforded the rites of readmission. T h e description of this

procedure m a k e s it clear that there is no differentiation m a d e between male

or female penitents of adult age.

T h e last group w a s the most incorrigible, in Methodios' judgement. They

again, r e g a r d l e s s of s e x , were obligated to tearful repentance and

confession during the remainder of their lives and finally after all this, only

2 1
Ibid., pp. 2 8 8 - 2 9 1 .
2 2
Arranz, " L a « D i a t a x i s » du patriarchs Methode pour la reconciliation des Apostats", pp. 292 -
293, "if they are weak according to their strength."

165
at the hour of death were they granted the mystery of Holy Communion,

"through the philanthropy of God." The adherence to this formula was in

rd
strict accordance with the 73 Canon of St Basil, dealing with apostasy,

which states:

He that denied Christ, is to be communicated at the

hour of death, if he confess it, and be a mourner till
23
that t i m e .

With each of the three categories, the actual prayers of forgiveness and

even the formula for the administering the Holy Chrism vary. Arranz points

out that the prayers designated for recital at the return of the adult

apostates appear to be compilations of earlier texts that may have been

combined for use at this time. He denotes that the prayers contain the
2 4
biblical word iAaa|ioO. This reference and use of this concept

theologically, underscores the deep dependence the sinner has on the

salvific sacrifice of Christ.

Various beliefs and attitudes held by Methodios become clear, whether we

refer to Migne, Goar or to Arranz's analysis of the diverse aspects of the

Aicrra^K; . The record reveals that the Patriarch is discerning and

cognisant of extenuating circumstances which might have existed

surrounding the apostasy and of the physical or psychological condition of

Percival (ed.) A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church
The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church, vol. 14, p. 609.
2 4
Arranz, " L a « D i a t a x i s » du patriarche Methods pour la reconciliation des Apostats", pp. 292 -
293, "expiation or propitiation" - s e e 1 John 2, 2 or 1 John 4, 10.

166
the individual involved. He differentiates between degrees of guilt and
2 5
deals with them by applying discretion and oiKovom'a. These traits are

not the attributes of an irrational fundamentalist, nor are they capitulation at

any price; they are designed solely to restore peace within the Church and

more importantly, peace within the individual. Rather, there is an apparent

selective and humane application of Church practices to deal with a

contemporary problem within the framework of the Tradition. The one

glaring exception is exemplified by the disposition of the most serious adult

offenders, which is without doubt protection of the Church and her members

from those "wolves" who might prey on the innocent and lead them back

into heresy.

Again, Karlin-Hayter, citing both Grumel and Gouillard, voices her differing

conclusion on this matter in this fashion:

Methodios was not a moderate, so much can be

deduced from his Vita and not in terms of praise—it
is clear that the author is embarrassed by his lack
of moderation. He says, reluctantly and with some
beating about the bush, that his hero overdid the
ejecting of former Iconoclast hierarchs, and their
replacement by candidates of whom nothing was

2 5
The concept of economy is the right of a bishop to use his judgement to apply the canonical
rules, to fit the situation, and thereby providing the opportunity of salvation for the individual's
involved.

167
 required but a demonstration of Orthodoxy.
Methodios' ode on the triumph of the images is not
moderated either. That he accepted Theodora's
conditions—the business of the Repentance of
Theophilos—does not make him so, nor does the
rapid appearance of the Studites in the opposition.

She continues to comment on the treatment of the hierarchy by Methodios.

But the ecclesiastical hierarchy was considered

expendable. Nor could the great majority of pre-
lates deposed ever hope to be reinstated: after due
penance, all they could aspire to was lay
communion. Their discontent acquired
respectability when the Studites assumed the
26
leadership of opposition to the patriarch.

There is evidence that there was concern within the ecclesiastical

community outside Constantinople about Methodios' approach to these

lapsed iconoclasts. Grumel and Darrouzes cite correspondence with the

Patriarch of Jerusalem regarding this issue. The first letter No. 419 in
2 7
Regestes is listed as lost; its estimated date March or April 843. The

second letter, which is extant, reveals a considerable amount of Methodios'

thinking. This letter, no. 434 (435), is dated around 11 March or April 846

Karlin-Hayter, "Gregory of Syracuse, Ignatios and Photios", pp. 141 - 142. S e e notes a s she
cites Gouillard and Grumel.
2 1
Grumel and Darrouzes (eds.) Les Regestes Des Actes Du Patriarcat De Constantinople (715 -
1206), p. 68.

168
by Grumel and Darrouzes. The interval of time between the two letters

must be considered significant. The first correspondence, very early in the

patriarchal term of Methodios, demonstrates that this issue was a major

consideration from the very beginning months of the shepherding of his

flock. The second letter, separated by three years from the first, shows that

this problem was not resolved, but continued to be a point of contention

during the entire time Methodios was on the throne. Examining the content

of the existing letter, quite a lot can be ascertained about Methodios'

thinking. In addition, this letter can be used to surmise the unease of the

Patriarch of Jerusalem about events in Constantinople. After the customary

polite and ecclesiastically correct greeting, Methodios addresses the topic

of the clergy who had been ordained by Tarasios and Nikephoros.

Obviously, the subject had been previously discussed by the two patriarchs,

perhaps in the first letter. The point in question was why this group had not

been restored to their clerical offices. Methodios lists a series of

prerequisites for true repentance and the requirements he believes these

clerics should have exhibited so that they could have been forgiven and

restored to their dignity. He stated:

They [the lapsed clergy] had discarded the

Tradition of his predecessors.

2 8
Ibid., pp. 78 - 79. S e e Pitra, " S . Methodius C P " , pp. 355 - 357, for text and commentary.
Reprinted in Afinogenov, Constantinopolitan Patriarchate • The Iconoclastic Crisis in Byzantium
(784 - 847) - in Russian, pp. 179 - 180.

169
 If these clergy had, after their deviation from the
Truth and the "straight path," wholeheartedly
repented and regretted their error.

If they had anathematised the leaders of the

heresy.

If they had pledged to uphold orthodoxy to their

death and until Christ's second coming.

Then they would have been restored to their former

rank, and harmony would have been re-established
29
in God's household.

There was a significant exception to this outline of repentance. This was

the former patriarch, John the Grammarian. John was named and specified

as a non-Christian who had not been properly graced with the sacerdotal

blessing. Methodios then returns to the clergy previously discussed,

The counsel of the Patriarch [of Jerusalem] his

esteemed eminence was well and good. But here,
over three years later and into the fourth year of his
[Methodios'] leadership. That, John, and his
followers [these clergy] had not shown any fruit of
repentance not even the speech of humility nor an
austere and more retired life, but with rage each of
them exhibits the same evil arrogance that had

Pitra, " S . Methodius C P " , pp. 355 - 356, lines 5 - 1 6 .

170
 been derived from the same Godless heresy...
[Methodios closes the letter with these words] This
is our judgement that no distinction was possible
among the heretics between those first ordained
[by Tarasios and Nikephoros] and the ones
3 0
ordained later [by the iconoclastic patriarchs].

This correspondence has elicited a comment from Afinogenov in his paper,

The Great Purge of 843. He states:

However, his grounds are completely different from

those he employed for "internal use". Instead of
recurring to the insistence of "the brethren" he
simply states that he could not do what his
correspondent suggested because the people in
question did not repent properly. Now, according
to Eastern canonical law, it is entirely the local
bishop's responsibility to determine the sincerity of
an individual's repentance. Since Jerusalem is too
far away, the patriarch has no choice but to believe
his Constantinopolitan counterpart. We, however,
need not do the same. The very fact that one and
the same action is justified by the same person in
two hardly compatible ways confirms that this

Ibid., p p . 3 5 6 - 357: " T a O T a dp0<3g icai A(av KaA(3g S i ' d A ( y o u iKQe\ii\r\q 0>£TEpag
V 0 U T
dASEAijHKfjg aePaamoTr|Tog, l5ou oifjicpov TpiEToOg nAipioG^VTog XP<^ . K a l
°0 TCTaprou
d p a ^ a j i ^ v o u , o i i 8 £ v a Kaptrdv | i E T a v o ( a g T O V 6 i d T ( V O Q Tcrrf£iv(5<|>povoQ Ariyou tcai aKAiipaywyiag
p ( o u "t] t^peufag E 6 £ A o u a ( o u S E I K V U J I E V O V n a p d T I V I TWV 6AO>V ai)T(3v ITWTTOTE "eyvwpev ou yap
6<|>puv T i g , °EV napd TWV d0Ewv EKECVUV alp£TiKi5v Ena(p£iv KctKug "e\iaQt, KaTacmciaa Kai
KaTEVEyKETv EPouAijGri T O auvoAov, o6\ wg atoxiWrig TTEirATiapEvog,..ouKoGv 5id TOOTOU OITTE
TTpWTOV TOU T E A £ U T a ( O U EV X £ l p O T O v ( g TTpOEKpl'vajlEV OUTE T V " E O X O T O V T O O TipiUTOU."

171
 person is aware of the real reason for undertaking
the move but does not deem it expedient to reveal
31
it.

Even though Afinogenov expresses his politically based rationale for

Methodios' behaviour, there is another perspective, which can be added to

this reasoning. In light of such distinguished scholarly judgment, there

might be proposed a supplementary construct on the issue of the apostate

clergy and hierarchs.

Speaking expressly of Methodios' possible rationale concerning their re-

entry into the Church, these patristic and theological references may help

shed light on his thinking. The Six Books on the Priesthood by St John

Chrysostomos, undoubtedly familiar to Methodios, cite this description of

Judas, which could be compared to the example of a wayward bishop.

God chose Judas and set him in that holy

company, and granted him the rank of apostle
along with the rest, and gave him something more
than the rest, in the management of their money.
And what happened? When he abused both of
these trusts, betraying him whom he was
commissioned to preach and misspending what he

3 1
Afinogenov, "KflNXTANTINOYnOAII E n i E K O r i O N E X E I : Part III - The Great Purge of 843: A
Re-Examination", p. 84.

172
 was appointed to take good care of, did he escape
punishment? No, this was the very reason why he
brought on himself a heavier penalty. And rightly
so; for we must not misuse the honours bestowed
on us by God to offend God, but to please him the
more.

Furthermore, one of the central prayers during the ordination of a priest

follows this exact method of action and instruction:

The Bishop [who is ordaining] bids for the

[candidate] priest to come near, he takes the host
and breaks the XC portion [the body of Christ] ...he
gives to him saying, 'Receive you this pledge and
preserve it whole and unharmed [emphasis mine]
until thy last breath, because you shall be held to
an accounting therefore in the second and terrible.
Coming of our great Lord, God and Saviour, Jesus
Christ.' The newly ordained proceeds behind the
Holy Table holding the Body of Christ in his hands
s t 3 3
reciting the 5 1 Psalm of Repentance.

Methodios' motivation may very well have been based on these theological

guidelines. He might have had in mind the awesome responsibility of the

clergy to preserve the teachings and the Tradition of the Church. We know

from his Vita that he faced the cruellest of physical privations and tortures

3 2
St. John Chrysostomos, (1977) Six Books On Holy Priesthood, trans. G . Neville (St. Vladimir's
Seminary Press), Crestwood, NY, p. 108.
3 3
Goar (ed.) Euchologion Sive Rituale Greacorum, pp. 244 ff. and p. 247 for prayer. Psalm
reading appears to be modern usage. S e e Hapgood, I. F. (ed.) (1965) Service Book of the Holy
Orthodox Catholic Apostolic Church (Syrian Antiochian Archdiocese), New York, p. 106.

173
and resisted the temptation to deny his faith. This attitude may also have

had an impact on the treatment and return of one-time apostates back into

the sanctity of the Church. If we examine the fact that he would allow them

to return to lay status and the reception of the Sacraments, it seems

strange to conclude that he was unusually harsh in his treatment of these

clerics. After all, it was within his power to excommunicate them

completely.

The outcry, which immediately arose from the extreme of the monastic

circles, namely the Studites, is another piece of evidence that perhaps

Methodios was not too harsh. The Studite position, well known in

Constantinople and to scholars of our day, was extremely conservative, and

much more doctrinaire than that of Methodios. The questions that must be

asked are: Why the immediate end to the peace after the Triumph of

Orthodoxy? How could Methodios be as extreme as Karlin-Hayter

suggests? Lastly, is there perhaps a motivation that is so obvious that is

being overlooked?

The Storm of Criticism

Even though Methodios' Vita is filled with commendations of his attributes

as a pastor, a friend to the poor and less fortunate, it is known from

contemporary sources that a smear campaign was mounted to discredit the

34 35
Patriarch and his reputation. Theophanes Continuatus and Genesios

Bekker (ed.) Chronographia Theophanes Continuatus, pp. 157 <f.

174
cite this famous account; to show what extremes his detractors went to

compromise Methodios. It seems a woman came forth and accused the

patriarch of sexual assault. The chroniclers identify her as the mother of

3 6
Metrophanes, future bishop of Smyrna. The matter caused a great

scandal in the capital. Summoned before a tribunal of political and

ecclesiastical officials Methodios gave demonstrative proof of his

innocence. Methodios exposed himself, showing his incapacity, and

physical inability, to commit such an act. He then related the tale of his

tortured battle with passions of the flesh and his release from sexual

fantasies at the miraculous hands of St. Peter during his sojourn in Rome.

Moreover, as a seal of the burning away of his

passions, his sexual urges were miraculously
burned away and thus the extinguishing of his
3 7
passions.

The miraculous burning of his genitalia, years before, had rendered him

incapable of the act of which the woman accused the Patriarch; therefore

the jury of gathered dignitaries exonerated Methodios. This account has

the sound of a colourful legend but it reveals growing tension arising once

again between two elements in the Byzantine social structure. Methodios'

policy that excluded any member of an extreme party from episcopal

candidacy directly affected the monastics. As Dvornik rightly pointed out,

3 5
Ibid., pp. 83 ff.
3 6
Dvornik, "Patriarch Photius and Iconoclasm", p. 14. Metrophanes is identified by Dvornik a s a
member of the opposing party and an enemy of Methodios.
3 7
Bekker (ed.) Chronographia Theophanes Continuatus, p. 159: "...a<t>piyii>vTiuv " E T I KOU
v
E v a K a p a ^ d v T w v T U V naGuiv, "epQq Jiq Q U T O V E ^ E K Q I E V 9Ep|i(5T£pov t) K a i 6p(iTjv"

175
these were the standard bearers of the fight against the iconoclasts, yet

they were being denied the opportunity to lead the Church in this post-

iconoclastic period. In their eyes, the individual denying them this earned

right was Methodios. Additionally as they examined his appointments, his

distracters accused him of choosing bishops of lesser ability and of lesser

3 8
qualifications.

Methodios and the Studites

In an attempt to placate the supporters of both moderate and extreme

positions, Methodios honoured the heroes of each camp. Early in his

patriarchal term on 26 January, 844; he translated the remains of Theodore

Studite and Archbishop Joseph of Thessaloniki, his brother, from the places

of their deaths in exile, to the Studite Monastery in the capital. This was
3 9
done with great respect and ceremony. This was related in a
4 0
contemporary source written shortly after Methodios' death, speaking

highly of Methodios' election and his early efforts to remove iconoclasts,

this piece shows some dichotomies.

Casting out of those that who threatened the cities,

the churches and councils, then was substituted
the pious and orthodox Methodios, who was called
forth by ecumenical vote to assume the patriarchal

Dvornik, "Patriarch Photius and Iconoclasm", p. 14.

3 9
van de Vorst, C . (1913) "La translation de S . Theodore Studite et de S . Joseph de
Thessalonique," Analecta Bollandiana, vol. XXXII, pp. 27 - 62, p. 27. This date is sometimes cited
as January 24, 843.
4 0
Ibid., p. 58 line 11, also s e e note 4 p. 27.

176
 throne to deliver and lead them. The most faithful
offspring of the Church were glorified and
proclaimed. He completely eliminated and brought
4 1
down the iconomachy.

This is an obvious reaction to the place of honour that Methodios gave the

fallen Studite leader, Theodore, during the Sunday of Orthodoxy

acclamations. On the other hand, it is obvious from the tone of the

monograph that it was written by either Studites or a Studite sympathiser.

The justification for this statement is in the text itself. The monograph

clearly identifies Naukratios, Abbot of Studios, and Athanasios, Abbot of

Sakkoudion, as initiators of the effort to exhume and return the bodies of

the Studite leaders to Constantinople. These two monastic leaders were

heirs of Theodore's leadership role and were rivals of Methodios for the

patriarchal throne. Each are quoted making impassioned speeches to the

Empress Theodora and Patriarch Methodios, extolling Theodore's virtues

4 2
and beseeching for his re-burial in Constantinople. Continuing the

examination of the text of The Translation of St. Theodore Studite and St.

Joseph of Thessaloniki the role of Methodios in the actual ceremony was

carefully highlighted. After a voyage on a sea "calmed of turbulence," a

great throng of clergy, monastics and laity met the boat carrying the bodies
4 3
of Theodore and Joseph. They solemnly processed with the holy relics to

the right side of the Narthex of the basilica of the Monastery of Studios to

4 1
Ibid., p. 54 (lines 28 - 34).
4 2
Ibid., p. 55 - 57, first Athanasios speaks p. 55 (line 25) - p. 56 (line 8), then Naukratios
speaks asking that Theodore be returned home p. 56 (line 20) - p. 57 (line 19).
4 3
van de Vorst, "La translation de S . Theodore Studite et de S . Joseph de Thessalonique," p. 57,
(line 2 0 ) - p . 58 (line 2).

177
be met by the Patriarch and the Empress as well as a large official
4 4
delegation. Here the respect and dignity that Methodios afforded the

remains of Theodore are described in detail. Methodios is depicted

ministering to Theodore personally, reverently venerating the holy relics,

embracing and kissing Theodore's body, vesting him with his own hands
4 5
and placing the symbols of ecclesiastical rank on Theodore's remains.

With Methodios in constant attendance, Theodore's body lay in state for two

days; then was processed again through the capital, passing by the
4 6
Imperial Palace to be returned to Studios for burial amongst the martyrs.

The reviewer of a monograph, which was written in 1913, mentions that a

sarcophagus with three bodies was discovered during the restoration of the

basilica in the thirteenth century. They were re-cemented in their location.

According to a document dated 1911, the bodies were clad in wool when
47
previously excavated. This fabric was common in monastic dress in the

ninth century.

This portrayal of Methodios' role in Theodore's translation discloses what

extraordinary lengths the patriarch went to honour Theodore and placate

the Studites. Unfortunately, in time this effort proved in vain and did not

appease Naukratios and Athanasios. The rupture that occurred between

patriarch and monks fractured the peace that had been enjoyed in the

heady days after the restoration of the icons.

Ibid., p. 58 lines 6 - 9 .
4 5
Ibid., p. 58 lines 1 2 - 2 4 .
4 6
Ibid., p. 58 line 21.
4 7
Ibid., p. 48 dated 1911. The three bodies are identified a s Sts. Platon, Theodore and Joseph.
This is at odds with reports describing Joseph's relics being translated to Thessaloniki for burial.

178
 The Studite Schism

An analysis of the surviving correspondence from the Patriarch to the

recalcitrant monks is enlightening. The correspondences from Methodios to

4 8
the Studites were gathered in an article by Darrouzes. It consists of a

complete letter and a fragmentary letter or homily and several shorter

fragments. In the case of the second larger remnant, Darrouzes does

identify it as a letter. The sources used by Darrouzes are Migne, Grumel,

Les Regestes, Mai, Pitra, most especially codex Sinaiticus 441 and others,

which he notes when applicable. As all the correspondences are examined,

there will be evidence that bears out some of our earlier suppositions. The

Studites became increasingly offended at being eliminated from the

hierarchical restructuring. They began to foment trouble in opposition to the

Patriarch and his selections. Once again, the pervasive attitude from

behind the cloistered walls of Studios was, 'We know what is best for the

Church.' Their stance was that they and their fellow monks had suffered

the most privation at the hands of the iconoclasts, so now it was only proper

for them to reap the reward for their steadfastness. This line of thinking

had two flaws in Methodios' eyes. One, it was presumptuous for them to

interfere with his prerogatives to appoint bishops, and secondly they, as

monks, owed obedience to their bishop, who was of course, Methodios.

There is difficulty in evaluating this all-important conflict during the

Methodian Patriarchal years. This impediment results from a scarcity of

Darrouzes, "Le patriarche Methode contre les iconoclastes et les studites".

179
independent historical observation. Early in this century, one of the

pioneering scholars of Methodios, von Dobschutz, expressed this thought in

this manner,

It is one of the most instructive facts of the

historical traditions that the Byzantine chronicles
available to us pass over this entire controversy in
silence. There must have been works of another
type, like the single fragment mentioned above
shows, [this refers to a segment in the Vita of
Nicholas the Studite, a successor to Naukratios in
the patriarchal years of Ignatios] which
unfortunately has been handed down to us in
isolation. In the end, it is not surprising that we
find nothing about it in the historical writings of the
time: what we do have goes back almost entirely to
4 9
a single, completely one-sided monastic source.

Wherever the text of Darrouzes is cited, the original Greek translated into

English, aided by the French, will be used in order to deal with Methodios'

difficult and complex writing style. The first letter is dated approximately

845 or 846 by Grumel/Darrouzes, giving us an indication as to the mood of

5 0
the Patriarch. It is known that the issue has been raging for sometime

and Methodios had reached the point of more than irritation with the Studite

v. Dobschtuz, "Methodios und die Studiten", p. 48: " E s gehftrt zu den lehrreichsten Tatsachen
der Uberliieferungsgeschichte, dap die uns erhaltenenbzyantinischen Chronisten diesen ganzen
Streit mit Stillschweigen ubergehen. E s mu|3 doch noch Werke andrer Art gegeben haben, wie
jenes oben erwahnte Fragment eines Historikers zeigt, das uns leider ganz isoliert uberliefert ist.
Wundern kann man sich schliepiich nicht, dap wir bei der Historiographie dieser Zeit nichts daruber
finden: w a s wir haben, geht doch fast alles auf eine, recht einseitig monchische Quelle zuruck."
5 0
Grumel and Darrouzes (eds.) Les Regestes Des Actes Du Patriarcat De Constantinople (715 -
1206), note 429. p. 75.

180
leadership. By custom, the salutation of these communiques is usually

polite and gracious. In this case, Methodios spoke plainly, when he began

his salutation by using rather direct and derogatory phrases.

Likewise the very holy Methodios, Archbishop of

Constantinople to the schismatic Naukratios and
Athanasios under house detainment in their own
monastery and condemned by their self-ordination
as abbots, and denial of the most mutual love of
the Holy Spirit. Because of this, those cohabitating
[with the above monks] who wish to return
themselves to the Holy Church by not submitting to
their [Naukratios and Athanasios] obedience are
51
permitted to do so.

Then Methodios calls for the fractious monks to submit to his authority. He

declares that he has written to his fellow patriarchs about the issue of

returning apostate clergy. Methodios didactically uses an Old Testament

reference to instruct the wayward monks, as was his custom in his writings.

He quotes the story of Noah and his drunken nakedness. Ham, Noah's

son, witnessed Noah's exposure and Noah's exposed body was then

covered by Ham's brothers. This serves as an example of the shameful

conduct of Naukratios and Athanasios in relation to their spiritual father,

5 2
Theodore. Methodios, once again, demonstrates his knowledge of

5 1
Darrouzes, "Le patriarche Methode contre les iconoclastes et les studites", pp. 30 & 31: "ToO
CHJTOO d y i w T a T o u M E 6 O 5 ( O U dpxi£TTiaK<5tiou K o v o T a v T i v o u i r d A E w g T O I Q dnoaxfoTaiQ NauKpcrrf^
Kcci 'ABavaoiiif nepiopiauoig EV Tfj I5(g (lovfi Kai "eAeyxog JT\Q O O T O X E I P O T O V T I T O U OUTWV
rjyouuEviag, (ig ioT^priTai dy(ou FlvEUiiaTOi;, bid Kai "aSEia ToTg 9£Aouaiv tE, aOTwv Ti]
KCX0oAlKfj TTpOQTpEXElV EKKAT1CT(Q UQ Ur| 0nOKEl|i^VOli; Ti] T(5v dTOKTUV OTTOTtXyij."
5 2
Ibid., lines 1 0 - 1 3 , s e e G e n . 9, 1 - 28.

181
Scripture and his willingness to utilise analogies from scriptural p a s s a g e s to

illustrate his argument.

In the next section of this first letter to the Studites, Methodios speaks

directly about C h u r c h g o v e r n a n c e . Methodios u s e s St. P a u l ' s epistles and

the example of the authority of a husband over wife, the husband's

5 3
submission to Christ and Christ a s h e a d of the body, which is the C h u r c h .

T h e C h u r c h is not without a h e a d , (otK^aAog), but it c a n h a v e only one

h e a d , who is Christ, Himself. Christ sent forth his Apostles with authority to

lead the Churches and the patriarchs are their direct successors.

Reminding Naukratios and A t h a n a s i o s that discipline is a n e c e s s a r y

5 4
component of C h u r c h life, the Patriarch then i m p o s e s s e v e r a l conditions

to their s u b m i s s i o n to his authority and outlines the terms of their

punishment:

T h e y are confined to the Studite Monastery

T h e y could not accept visitors, other than Studites.

No other monks, clergy, laity or p e r s o n s of rank

were allowed in their monastery.

T h e y were allowed to s e n d disciples to the market-

place to trade. T h e y could sell, buy and trade their

goods.

T h e y were allowed to continue their work within the

monastery walls.

T h e y must acknowledge his authority and s e e k his

permission for any other travel.

Ibid., p. 31, lines 18 - 26, s e e I Cor. 1 1 , 3 , E p h . 4, 16 ff.

Ibid., p. 33, lines 31 - 34.

182
 They were required to acknowledge these

restrictions and accept them as part of their

rehabilitation.

Finally, he a s k e d the monks to formally d e n o u n c e

Theodore's writings condemning Tarasios and

Nikephoros. He reminded them that they would be

following their spiritual father T h e o d o r e ' s example

in this act of reconciliation and Methodios praised

Theodore for recognising his own mistake and

5 5
making a m e n d s before the end of his l i f e .

A s further e v i d e n c e of Methodios' displeasure, the Patriarch repeated his

charge that Naukratios and A t h a n a s i o s were truly schismatic. He again

gave his permission to all the young monks to leave the monastery without

penalty s o that Naukratios and A t h a n a s i o s could not influence them. If they

refused this opportunity, the other monks would be viewed a s supporting

5 6
the Studite leaders, thereby sharing their condemnation. Methodios

applied a biblical lesson a s an analogy to this problem. He u s e d the New

T e s t a m e n t Parable of the T a l e n t s to present an analogy that Naukratios

and A t h a n a s i o s had w a s t e d what Theodore had entrusted into their c a r e ,

5 7
the spiritual legacy of the great Studite H o u s e .

Fatouros (ed.) Theodori Studitae Epistulae in two vols, Epistle 4 7 8 , A E O V T I oaKtAAapfty pp.
6 9 5 - 6 9 9 , lines 6 0 - 6 5 , Theodore acknowledges the special position of the Patriarchs a s
successors to the Apostles. The rankings in ecclesiastical honour for the patriarchates are listed.
Lines 7 8 ff. Nikephoros is the rightful Patriarch of Constantinople; he must be restored so that the
pentarchy would return to its proper representation. In Epistle 4 7 5 pp. 6 8 3 - 6 8 5 lines 2 4 - 3 0
concerning Tarasios, Theodore acknowledges the authenticity of Nicaea II which was under
Tarasios a s president.
5 6
Darrouzes, "Le patriarche Methode contre les iconoclastes et les studites", p. 3 3 , lines 4 6 - 5 1 .
5 7
Matt. 2 5 , 14-30.

183
S e v e r a l times within his writings, h e a s k s of Naukratios and A t h a n a s i o s ,

which bishop h a d ordained them abbots. By appointing t h e m s e l v e s ,

Methodios s a y s that they have denied t h e m s e l v e s the Holy Spirit, the g r a c e

from a bishop's ordination. "Who made you a b b o t s ? Firstly, I omit the

when, a n d a s k who established y o u ? A bishop naturally m a k e s a priest.

Abbots, who ordained y o u ? A bishop cannot, either while alive or d e a d , lay

5 8
hands on [consecrate or designate] another bishop. W h o then

established y o u ? Who consecrated you? W h o received you?" It w a s the

59
general d i a s p o r a a n d yours [the other Studites] who played s u c h a p a r t .

T h e patriarch called upon the Studite leaders to prove t h e m s e l v e s monks

by living in a true monastic way, by living quietly. He stated they had been

o p p r e s s e d for Orthodoxy, [by the iconoclasts] a n d they had been scattered

b e c a u s e of their steadfast s t a n c e . T h e n , were all united by G o d ' s g r a c e ?

"You b e c a m e solitary opinions unto yourself. Y o u r small numbers would

6 0
not corrupt the multitude". Methodios then returns to the central theme of

the missive to the Studites.

About the books [writings], of which w e have

previously s p o k e n , the books against Nikephoros

the all holy a n d T a r a s i o s the trice b l e s s e d , if you

do not anathematise them today, or on a day

Under Orthodox canon law two bishops, minimum must consecrate a candidate to the
episcopacy. This is to protect the Church from heresy.
5 9
Darrouzes, "Le patriarche Methode contre les iconoclastes et les studites", p. 3 5 , lines 68 - 76:
" ' H y o u | i £ v o u i ; <J\IQC, T(Q £ 0 E T O ; T O y d p «
n d T E ; » EKWV n a p k i n , TO 5 E « T ( g E 9 E T O ; » EpwTw.
ripEaPi>T£'poi>Q ^TTIOKOTTOI; TfdvTUK; ^TTOI'T)0£V " E T I £(3VTOQ TOO T^youji^vou ojiwv. ' Hyou|i£vou<; T i g
v
'HnSg E0ETO; OU8E yap £TT((JKOTTO£ £IT(0KOTTOV EIQ T O V EOUTOO TCSTTOV OIJTE ^<3V OI5TE \iEra
9dvaTov x E i p o G E T E i , O(3TE \xr\v ityoun^vog ^youjiE'vov TipoTiBe'vai tic, TOV EOUTOO TC5TIOV S u v c r r a i
TTUTTOTE. Tic, oOv EOETO u u a g ; liq ETTEuAdyriaEv; iiq ^TiES^^aTo; ' H [IEV y a p S i a o r r o p d TWV o A u v
fjv Kai E V ^ p £ i T I V I f j a a v ol T 6 T E a u v q y i i E ' v o i KaG'u^g."

6 0
Ibid., pp. 35 - 37, lines 9 5 - 1 0 1 .

184
 prescribed, in front of the brothers and

concelebrants when they will c o m e together in your

monastery to hear you, and you will a g r e e to burn

and anathematise these writings. Know you

brothers, for our own defence, as we have

previously said to you, we have written the

surrounding [patriarchates] concerning [this

matter]. [If you refuse] then you will not be simply

6 1
anathematised but even worse, katathematised!

In the next lines, Methodios reminds the recalcitrant monks that at the end

of his life their e s t e e m e d teacher and father, T h e o d o r e , recanted and w a s

"with us" i.e. the Patriarchs. T h e n Methodios declared there were more

details that he could reveal against Naukratios and A t h a n a s i o s , but he had

c h o s e n not to do s o in order to avoid not provoking additional anger against

Continuing with D a r r o u z e s ' treatise, even though he labels it a s Letter 2,

the text of this lengthy fragment is more analogous to a s e r m o n than a

letter. T h e s e c o n d letter h a s a much different style and tone than the first

letter and contains s e v e r a l pertinent points not explored in the first letter.

T h e salutation d o e s not now exist; and the text begins "...it w a s not

6 1
Ibid., p. 37, lines 109 - 116: ""Ov Tponov e i p i r r o , T d yeypamjEvct Kcrrd NiKi]<|>6pou TOO
TTavomoi) Kai T a p a a i TOO T p i a o A p f o u pipAi'a el \ir\ dva0e^(rr(aoiTE rj ar\\iEpov EUTTpoaGEV T<3V
dSeA<t)(3v K a i ouAAEiToupyuiv r\ dc; (opiapEvtov i ^ e p a v EAGOVTWV OI3T<3V npdq TTJ u|iET£pa novrj
Kai dKpou)|i^vuv, Kai GEI'IITE TOV EV OOTOII; 8pov Kafeiv TE dvaGEjaaTi^Eiv airrd, KaGoiq
dTToAoyoujiEvoi EV TOII; TTE^I^ Tffe E K K A q a i a g SIOIKI^OEOI y£ypa<|>TfKa(i£v, yvuiTE, d5£A<)>o(, OTI
Ojidg T E aOroOq TOOQ ToOg TTEpiExoiiEVOug ai3T<3v oiix dnA<3s dva0£(iaT(aon£v, a A A ' a i a x p o T E p u g
KaTaQ£jiaT(oo|i£v."
6 2
Ibid., lines 1 1 7 - 1 2 8 .

185
received." Whether this refers to the r e s p o n s e to the first letter or the

letter itself, we do not know. T h e Patriarch u s e s Old T e s t a m e n t metaphors,

quotations from the fathers and citations of the c a n o n s to illustrate his

m e s s a g e to the Studites. A s is customary in his writings, the Patriarch

employs the Old T e s t a m e n t figure of M o s e s to demonstrate the Studite

behaviour. In the biblical example, M o s e s ' and Aaron's leadership is

challenged. Dathan, Korah and others confront them, but Moses

responded that these men had separated themselves from God's

congregation, e v e n though they were Levites. G o d then c o n s u m e d t h e s e

6 4
wayward priests with fire. Methodios continues by demanding obedience

of the Studite monks. He a d m o n i s h e s them to c o m e out from behind the

walls of Studios and to c e a s e their hypocritical thoughts and actions. "Do

you wish to obey the c a n o n s ? T h e y will s i l e n c e you, e v e n if you do not

6 5
wish to be silenced." Methodios quotes the Council of C h a l c e d o n , C a n o n

IV to e m p h a s i s e his authority:

Domestic oratories and monasteries are not to be

erected contrary to the judgement of the bishop.

E v e r y monk must be subject to his bishop, and

must not leave his house except at his

66
suggestion.

Darrouzes, "Le patriarche Methods contre les iconoclastes et les studites", p. 39 line 1 = taken
from codex Sinaiticus 441 f. 265.
6 4
Numbers 16, 1 - 50. Ibid., line 5 ff.
6 5
Ibid., p. 41 lines 3 5 - 4 1 .
6 6
Percival (ed.) A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church
The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church, vol.14, p. 270. Darrouzes, "Le patriarche
Methode contre les iconoclastes et les studites", p. 41 lines 41 ff.

186
He then r e - e m p h a s i s e s that the bishop is the canonical h e a d of the d i o c e s e

and that all monks and monastic h o u s e s within the a r e a are under his

supervision, a point m a d e very clear in the c a n o n s . Methodios questions

whether the different monastic h o u s e s , Studite, Sakkoudium, and Sabatiani

are "one house" or "separate h o u s e s " ? T h e question may have b e e n posed

b e c a u s e the monks were acting in concord, and Methodios w a s attempting

6 7
to differentiate their activities. Continuing, the Patriarch c o m e s to the

issue of his position on the apostate clergy and their status in the C h u r c h .

Methodios states his concepts were b a s e d on three s o u r c e s , the Old

Testament priesthood of Aaron, the words of the Apostle Paul in describing

6 8
the priesthood of Melchizadeck, and the patristic F a t h e r s . He u s e s the

Eighth Epistle of St. Dionysios the Areopagite To the monk Demophilos

Concerning One's Proper Work and Kindness to delineate the ranks of the

clergy, their relationship to e a c h other, a s well a s their accountability.

Let the priests accept what the hierarchs have

a s s i g n e d to them. Let the hierarchs bow to the

apostles and to the s u c c e s s o r s of the apostles.

And should one of t h e s e last [the hierarchs] fail in

his duty then let him be set right by his p e e r s . In

this way, no order will be disturbed and each

person will remain in his own order and in his own

ministry.

Darrouzes, "Le patriarche Methode contre les iconoclastes et les studites", p. 43, lines 65 ff.
6 8
Heb. Chapters 5-6.
6 9
Darrouzes, "Le patriarche Methode contre les iconoclastes et les studites", p. 45: " " O T I 5E TOT<;
< i £ p £ 0 o i v > o l ETTIOK<5TIOI, EITOOV ol Urfpapxai, TOT<; 8E Itpdpxaiq o l dndcrroAoi K a i ol T<5V
dnoordAwv SidSoxoi..' K a i t\ vo6 TIQ EV EKE(VOI<; TOO irpoarjicovToi; diroo^aXEiii, u a p d TWV
duotTorywuv d y ( w v ^ n a v o p G u G i j o E T a i , K a i oi5 TfEpiOTpa^rjoETai Td^ig tv\ T a ^ i v , [KOTQ MWOEO

187
T h i s example w a s a c l e a r reference to the rebelling Studites. T h e y were

judging their superiors [i.e. the bishops], which in the Tradition of the

C h u r c h is contrary to the c a n o n s and an extremely arrogant a b u s e of their

vow of o b e d i e n c e . It must be considered what would h a v e been the

c o n s e q u e n c e s of this thinking if it had been applied to the m o n a s t i c s by

iconoclastic b i s h o p s ? Methodios most emphatically s t a t e s that bishops,

priests and d e a c o n s retain their priesthood until the end of time, and if they

have gone astray; after being warned three times, they are katathematised

7 0
and c a n never recover their priestly dignity. Methodios a s s e r t s this

opinion citing the authority of two c a n o n s , the fifth canon of the council of

7 1 7 2
Antioch and the eighth canon of C h a l c e d o n . Both c a n o n s s p e a k to the

issue of a priest or monastic who d o e s not recognise the authority and

discipline of their bishop. The consequence is defrocking and

excommunication. A s if to underline his authority a s their bishop, he

reminds the monks that the hierarchy is unified by principals, which draws

on G r a c e to add to the shortcomings of the individual p e r s o n . T h e bishop's

office is a continuum with that of the Apostles t h e m s e l v e s . He stated that

<|)r|o(v] aW iiKctoTOQ tv -rrj TCI^EI auTou Kat t\ ^£iToupy(g auToO £crrai." S e e Pseudo -
Dionysius the Areopagite, Pseudo - Dionysius - The Complete Works., p. 276 = P G 3, 1093.
7 0
Darrouzes, "Le patriarche Methode contre les iconoclastes et les studites", p. 47, lines 122 -
128.
7 1
Percival (ed.) A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church
The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church, vol. 14, p. 111: "Any presbyter or deacon
who spurns his bishop, and withdraws from him, and sets up another altar, if being thrice called by
the bishop, he shall persist in his arrogance let him be deposed and be deprived of all hope of
restoration."
7 2
Ibid., vol.14, p. 273: "Let the clergy of the poor-houses, monasteries and martyrs remain under
the authority of the bishops in every city according to the tradition of the holy Fathers; and let no
one arrogantly cast off the rule of his own bishop; and if any shall contravene this canon in any way
whatever, and will not be subject to their own bishop, if they be clergy, let them be subjected to
canonical censure, and if they be monks or laymen, let them be excommunicated."

188
the principle that governs all bishops is that their power h a s one source,

Christ and one continuum, the Apostles and their s u c c e s s o r s . T h i s is the

dignity of Apostolic s u c c e s s i o n , individuals who are diverse in talent with

human frailties but are added to and strengthened by G o d ' s Holy Spirit

7 3
through their ordination.

Methodios returned to his primary line of reasoning. The Patriarch

pronounced he had b e e n patient with them; he had not only a s k e d their

compliance three times but many times, he ordered them to c o n d e m n the

writings of Theodore against Nikephoros and T a r a s i o s . Again, a clear

distinction w a s made between the writings and the m a n . T h e required

contrition did not require renouncing their spiritual father, T h e o d o r e , or the

whole corpus of his works, only his condemnation of the patriarchs T a r a s i o s

and Nikephoros. T h i s differentiation e c h o e d the paradoxical portions within

the text of the Synodicon.

All that w a s written or s p o k e n against the holy

Patriarchs (Germanos), Tarasios, Nikephoros,

Methodios, (Ignatios, Photios, S t e p h e n , Anthony

and Nicholas) be A n a t h e m a [note n a m e s in

parenthesis were added in later editions of the

7 4
Synodicons]

7 3
Ibid., p. 49, lines 1 6 7 - 1 7 4 .
7 4
Gouillard, "Le Synodikon d'Orthodoxie: edition et commentaire", p. 53, lines 114 - 116,
"AnavToc TO KOTO T(3V dy(u>v Trorrpiapx<3v TEpjiavoO, T a p a a f o u , NiKE<|><5pou K a i ME9O5(OU
( I y v a T ( o u , <DUT(OU, lT£<|>avou, K a i NIKOAOOU) ypa<J>EVTa if AaAtjG^vTa, dvd0£na." The parenthesis
indicates patriarchs added later in history.

189
Only a few lines later within the S y n o d i c o n , Methodios followed this direct

reference to T h e o d o r e ' s writings, among others, with direct praise for

Theodore as an iconodulic leader. In the citation of the monastic

iconodules, Theodore w a s given the first place of honour.

T o Theodore the all-righteous abbot of the Studios,

7 5
May His Memory be Eternal...

T h e Patriarch reminds the monks that they would be following the example

of their mentor, T h e o d o r e , in denouncing t h e s e very specific writings ( s e e

7 6
figure 2). Methodios reminds Naukratios and A t h a n a s i o s that the penalty

for non-compliance is Kcn-dOe^a!

7 7
The Fragments

F r a g m e n t s 1 and 2

Niketas of Herakleon preserved fragment 1. It is an apologetic fragment of

thirteen lines and c o n c e r n s the restoration of previously d e p o s e d clergy and

laity. S p r i n g / S u m m e r of 843 is the estimated dating of the writing. If this is

an accurate chronology, the affected heretics must have been among the

first group d e p o s e d by Methodios, shortly after the Triumph of Orthodoxy.

It is clear that objections raised to the Patriarch's leniency must have been

begun quite early. T h e objection demonstrates that Methodios' problems

7 5
Ibid., p. 53, line 127: "0eo6o5pou TOO navoo(ou ityouu^vou T(3V I T O U 5 ( O U , A l w v ( a t\ \ivt[\ii\."
7 6
Ibid., p. 51, lines 1 9 5 - 2 0 8 .
7 7
T h e s e fragments are catalogued and cross-referenced in Appendix 1 a s well.

190
with the dissidents began very shortly after the restoration of the icons.

Methodios names the venerable monastics loannikios, Symeon and

79
Hilarion a s authorities that he consulted on the matter of leniency for

these clerics. T h e s e elders were, a s we h a v e previously stated, the leaders

of the anti-Studite monastics from outside the capital a n d highly respected

8 0
spiritual l e a d e r s .

Fragment 2

This section is identified a s a letter concerning "rebellious clerics." The

dating of this portion is estimated to be 8 4 5 . T h i s s e g m e n t of only 11 lines

had to do with clergy who were heretical, but there w a s no mention of

hierarchs within the text. T h e clergy c o n s i s t e d of the lower ranks, priests,

d e a c o n s a n d lower orders who "were small in number c o m p a r e d to the

8 1
great number of orthodox". Methodios refers to an oral communication

from loannikios, which indicated that the struggle to c l e a n the C h u r c h

8 2
extended far d e e p e r than only hierarchs.

Fragment 3

Darrouzes, "Le patriarche M6thode contre les iconoclastes et les studites", p. 17, Darrouzes
concludes that these objections were raised by persons ordained by Methodios.
7 9
Abbot of the Dalmatos Monastery, S e e Janin, Les eglises et les monasteres des grands
centres Byzantins.
8 0
Darrouzes, "Le patriarche Methode contre les iconoclastes et les studites", p. 54, lines 1 - 1 3 .
8 1
Ibid., p. 54, Fragment 2 lines 1 - 3 : "UQv yt'voc; K a i i r a a a d^a (iiaoOvTEg OUTOUI;, ou
auvexupouv tiq KAfjpov oAwg I-ASE'IV, aAA* I^TTE(AOUV ndvTEQ dnoppayfjvai Trfe ' E K K A t i a i a i ; £i
6A(youg a i p E T i K o u g noAA<3v dp6o8d£wv npoKp(vti)(i£V."

8 2
Ibid., p. 54, lines 5 - 10.

191
This fragment that is known by a small marginal notation by J o h n C h e l a s

deals with episcopal hierarchy. It is a reference to the submission of the

8 3
hierarchy to G o d ' s natural order. Patriarch Methodios' anthropology

s e e m s like a strange subject to include in this part of the study. W h e n the

segment is examined for content the appropriateness b e c o m e s evident.

Methodios begins with the angels who were first created. T h e n he lists the

first-parents [Adam and E v e ] who were tempted by S a t a n and fell b e c a u s e

of pride. Methodios turns this l e s s o n toward the Studite l e a d e r s , "Anyone

like this who d o e s live within their boundaries or is prideful will be put in his

8 4
place."

Fragment 4

This section is a portion of a homily directed to the supporters of Naukratios

and A t h a n a s i o s . Part of the c e n s u r e of the Studites w a s that they were not

allowed contact with any other monks. This fragment also instructs the

monks on their behaviour. Methodios' order to c o n d e m n T h e o d o r e ' s

writings also includes s u s p e n s i o n from priestly s e r v i c e , even if they

complied. It is not c l e a r if this s u s p e n s i o n is temporary or permanent, but

the Patriarch is forceful in his directive to the monks:

8 3
Ibid., p. 22.
8 4
Darrouzes, "Le patriarche Methode contre les iconoclastes et les studites", p. 54: "OUSEVOQ
ydp ETe'pou TO uii \ilveiv tv ToTg O ( K E ( O K ; opoig rj TOO Tffc on£pti<()av(ag d A d y o u KivrjpaTog
Epyov Ka0£aTr|K£V."

192
 Do not eat with them, do not greet them lest you be

connected with their acts a n d their a n a t h e m a s .

T h i s w e will remember a n d declare if ever they

return a n d anathematise the evil writings against

the Patriarchs, even more s o against the C h u r c h ,

for they were the C h u r c h a n d those who h a d

gathered - a n a t h e m a t i s i n g [them], For the time that

8 5
awaits them is one of p e n a n c e not priesthood.

Fragment 5 and 6

In t h e s e short sections, Methodios a d d r e s s e s the monastic communities of

8 6
Sakkoudion a n d Bosketion. T h e Patriarch reminded t h e s e h o u s e s that

Theodore himself had withdrawn his own condemnations of Nikephoros and

T a r a s i o s thus, he h a d returned to the good g r a c e s of the C h u r c h before his

8 7
death. Methodios called on the monks to emulate T h e o d o r e ' s spirit and

to condemn T h e o d o r e ' s writings. A s a penalty, Methodios reminds this

8 8
group of monks that he w a s still prepared to impose s a n c t i o n s on them.

Ibid., p. 55, Fragment 4, lines 1- 6: "Mr| ouvEoriaaGE OUTOTQ, \ir\ Xeyert xaiptiy. ^Ttt
KOIVUJVETTE, Epyoig a u r i S v , EJ; d v a y i c a f o u hi Adyou K a i T<$ d v a G c ' i i a T i . K a i TOUTO 5E urro^vrjaonEv
Kai Eliroj|i£v (5g ET TTOTE £iriaTp^ai£v KOKETVO T O KOK(3C; ypa<|>£vTa ou ToaouTov KOTO TWV
TTaTpiapxwv, dAAd KOTO Tfjg 'EKKAr|a(a<; EKETVOI ydp fjaav 'EKKAr|a(a oi Kai TOUTIIV
a u v d ^ a v T E g - d v a G E j i a T i ' a o u a i v , EC^ETTOI OIJTOTI; K a i p o g j i E T a v o i a g K a i o u x i lEpwauviig."

8 8
Janin, Les 6glises et les monastdres des grands centres Byzantins, pp. 178 - 179.

8 7
Darrouzes, "Le patriarche Methods contre les iconoclastes et les studites", p. 55, lines 4 - 6 .

8 8
Ibid., p. 55, lines 1 3 - 1 5 .

193
 Fragment 7

T h e T e s t a m e n t Fragment

This section could well be dealt with in the chapter on T h e Methodian

L e g a c y , but s i n c e its contents c o n s i s t s of the two major conflicts that

occurred in Methodios' patriarchal y e a r s , they will be d i s c u s s e d at this

juncture. T h e fragment is believed to have been written very late in

Methodios' life, w h e n his Vita states he w a s suffering from a debilitating and

8 9
painful illness. T h e Vita g o e s on to assert that the Patriarch w a s certain

that this trial w a s a chastisement from G o d b e c a u s e of his z e a l o u s n e s s and

9 0
inflexibility. T h i s fragment h a s two distinct sections. T h e first d e a l s with

the problem of the fallen iconoclastic clergy and their re-integration into the

Church. Within this segment, the dying Patriarch openly d i s c u s s e s the

clergy and d e a c o n s , while the reception of hierarchs is not d i s c u s s e d in the

fragment. It cannot be ascertained if this is deliberate or the result of the

segment, which dealt with the hierarchs being lost. Methodios c o n f e s s e d ,

"this i s s u e w a s not a clear or plain situation" (EUPEGEVTOC; TOO TTpdyncn-oq

9 1
O U K avioidoeuc; dtiAf^). He continues by stating that the principle of

oiKovonict w a s his guide but his fellow brother and c o n c e l e b r a n t s insisted

8 9
Migne (ed.) Patrologiae cursus completes: Series graeca., col. 1260 a, "Ndoov £Tia<t>i'r|ai T $
ItpapxTi 05epov auTi^v oi'iaTpo( dvojid^ouaiv."
9 0
Ibid., col. 1260 a: '"O£o<; 5E <3V KOI d y x i v o u o c t T o g 6 ao^dg, tne'yvu) TO CXITIOV Tfjg TTOUSEICK;,
d T i TE Td TOO t^Aou OTTEprjAaTo iiE"Tpa, Kat dtroToufqi Kcrrd T<3V dnox£ip(wv E x p r i a a T O . "
9 1
Darrouzes, "Le patriarche Methods contre les iconoclastes et les studites", p. 56, line 4.

194
 9 2
that t h e s e clergy be dealt with harshly. T h e concluding s e n t e n c e of the

first paragraph s u m m a r i s e s the manner of their reception.

O n this i s s u e we are going to do the following, we

will chrismate them with Myron in the fashion of the

93
Arians. W e will c a t e c h i s e them to completely
9 4
eliminate the evil.

The patriarch then l e a v e s this subject with the following admonition.

And do not in any way attempt to forgive them by

re-instating them to their [former] ecclesiastical or

liturgical rank s o that we do not surround o u r s e l v e s

and our brothers with a double evil, with a lack of

9 5
wisdom and s h a m e .

The theme of the next portion of this fragment, lines 1 9 - 3 5 , centres on the

Studites and their s c h i s m from the Patriarch. From the outset, Methodios

labels the monks "those who are schismatic from the Church." A s in the

other c o r r e s p o n d e n c e s , the patriarchal position is clear and c o n c i s e . With

a sincere repentance, the monks would be welcomed back into communion,

but they must meet s o m e requirements. What are the prerequisites? A s in

Ibid., p. 56, lines 8 - 1 0 .

9 3
Percival (ed.) A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church
The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church, vol. 14, p. 185, Canon VII of
Constantinople I 381 AD. Re-enforced at the Council of Trullo.
9 4
Darrouzes, "Le patriarche MSthode contre les iconoclastes et les studites", p. 56 lines 11 - 13:
a v T £
" T a O T a 6E K a i tvi TTpdyuctTOQ £noir|od^£0a, xpf°" C dpEiavou^ K a i K a T r i x i j a E a i
iTEpiPaAovTEQ, " i v a TI^V Kai<(av dT!0Tp(i|>u)VTai EIQ TE'AOQ."
9 5
Ibid., p. 56, lines 16 - 18: " . . . K a i \ir\ 8 o K i u d a r | T £ auyxwptja£wq Ttjg ETTI T<3 (£paTiK<3 "r\
AEiToupyiKi? Ba9u($ n £ T a 8 o 0 v a i a u T o i g , " i v a \ir\ S I T T O T ? KOCKOII; n £ p i d A o u £ v kaujodq K a i TOUQ
d8EA(|)oug dao<(>(q <)>iu( K a i a i o x u v r j . "

195
past m i s s i v e s , Methodios again calls for the Studites to anathematise the

writings of T h e o d o r e . After this stipulation, the Patriarch m a k e s reference

to the manner of re-instatement, he a s s e r t s that clergy be restored to

"simple rank of clergy never returned to their former ranks, ...OITTAOG

9 6
UpaTiKoO paB^oO TOU KCC0' £ a u T o u c ; £ E , o u a i a v cmoSo-rcc;." Fr. Dvornik

s u m m a r i s e s this rancour in this way:

The quarrel must have lasted till the death of

Methodios, and it is just possible that the Patriarch

m a d e the first move towards reconciliation; at any

rate, we find in the fragment of his will quoted by

J o h n C h e l a s at the end of the thirteenth century on

reference to the Studites, when the patriarch wrote:

' R e c e i v e to communion with honour those willing to

do p e n a n c e , provided they disown with a n a t h e m a

their father's (St. Theodore Studite's) writings

against the saintly Patriarchs Tarasios and

Nikephoros; those who with s i n c e r e hearts return

to the C h u r c h fully reinstate them in the dignity of

97
the priestly o r d e r . '

T h e Patriarch turns his attention towards the hierarchs. T h e r e is not an

indication a s to precisely which bishops he is targeting, but without a doubt,

there is more than one in that the plural form is u s e d . T h e hierarchs who

supported the Studites in the conflict with the Patriarch are certainly the

object of Methodios' wrath. T h e instructions that c o n c e r n t h e s e wayward

bishops are quite unambiguous. T h e y c a n retain their office, in n a m e only,

9 6
Ibid., p. 56, lines 23 and 24.
9 7
Dvornik, The Photian Schism, History and Legend, p. 15.

196
their power should be stripped from them a n d their former h o m e s [bishop's

p a l a c e s ] cannot be returned to them. Their physical n e e d s should be

provided. T h e n e c e s s i t i e s a r e listed, specifically wheat, wine a n d oil, but

the amount is moderated s o that only a "sufficient" amount would be made

9 8
available. After four difficult y e a r s in office, Methodios reaffirmed his

r e a s o n s for continued vigilance a n d the motives for his actions in the

concluding paragraph of the "Methodian Testament". His instructions and

u n e a s i n e s s a r e a loud e c h o of the homily he delivered in the opening d a y s

of his Patriarchate and reveal that e v e n in the last hours, h e continued to be

apprehensive. Albeit, he states his willingness to receive the recalcitrant

clergy and hierarchs, still h e cautiously w a r n s of the possible c o n s e q u e n c e s

of this act. He instructs that the returning clerics should be guardedly

received. T h e Patriarch explained the purpose of this watchful approach in

two facets. He states the fear that if t h e s e clerics harbour v e s t i g e s of their

previous attitudes, they could do great harm to the C h u r c h . If this occurred

Methodios prophetically d e c l a r e s that, those who received t h e s e clergy

would be called to account at the hour of death for improperly receiving

9 9
them and not protecting the C h u r c h from harm or s c a n d a l .

Darrouzes, "Le patriarche M6thode contre les iconoclastes et les studites", p.56 lines 24 - 2 7 :
"•••\if\ \iivroi raXq o i K E i a i i ; TWV ETTiaKdtrwv dpxaTg d v a a T p e ^ a i TOUTOUQ TO KaGdAou ToA}ir|0T|T£,
dAAd, AEITTOUE'VOIS IK TWV TTOTE i m a K o i r u i v auT<3v x o p r i y s l T E TO elg C,u)r\v OUTOTC;, OI'TOU K a i
O I V O U K a i tXaloo TO a i J T a p K E Q . "

9 9
Ibid., p. 56, lines 29 - 35: "BAE'TTETE- OUK E"XETE E^ouoiav oi if\q KaG' l^dg oiKounEvrjc;
irapEKTog Tffc npoEipim^viiQ dKpiPoug E^ETdoEWQ TT^V 8OXIIV OOTWV £KiToiiioaa6ai. TaflTa
TIOIOOVTEI; Kai OOTU <)>uAdTTovTEQ, EOUTOOI; EO diavpdmeaBe Kai dTT^uova TI^V ' E K K A i i a i ' a v
S i a T H p r j o E T E , TTETTEIOUE'VOI OTI oi) AaAoOjiEv drrAuig K a i \idMoia £v &pa TOU GavaTou T^TOI T<?
axpiif Tfjg vootiAEUOEwg, aAA' tv rlvEU(iaTi GEI^ KIVOUUEVOI K a i Tjj E K K A i i a f q ^ I A O T T O V T E Q TO
doKavfidA1OTOV. "

197
One of the last official acts of Patriarch Methodios was an extremely

illuminating one. We have a near contemporary account of the events that

serve as a focal point of the actions taken by Methodios. There unfolds an

intriguing tale of religious motivations mixed with political statesmanship.

Methodios purposefully chose to honour Theodore Studite in January 846 .

The translation of the relics of Theodore and Joseph, Archbishop of

Thessaloniki, Theodore's brother, was an occasion of solemnity and

1 0 0
importance to the Studite house. Methodios, as was previously

described, personally ministered most respectfully to the relics of Theodore,

and paid great homage to the monastic leader. A year later, as was seen in

the previous review of the fragments, the conflict with the Studite monks

was still raging without a solution. The peace gesture that Methodios had

made by his reverence of Theodore's relics did not bear fruit. Both

Theodore the Studite and Patriarch Nikephoros, Methodios' mentor, had

died in exile and had been entombed away from Constantinople. After

January 846, Theodore Studite's remains were translated back to the

1 0 1
capital; Methodios turned his attention to honouring Nikephoros. The

motivation of the Patriarch can only be surmised. Naturally, he wished to

esteem his predecessor. As we know, Methodios had been Nikephoros'

archdeacon; consequently, a close bond of friendship must have existed

between these two churchmen. Yet, there is another dimension to this

series of events. Using the work of Theophanes and the excellent analysis

van de Vorst, "La translation de S . Theodore Studite et de S . Joseph de Thessalonique".

1 0 1
Theophanes Presbyteros (1978), (c. 844) "Mnemeia Hagiologica nyn Proton Ekdidomena -
Narratio de translatione S Nicephori," in Subsidia Byzantina, vol. 8, eds. 0 . B ICOOCVVT) and J .
Irmscher et al (Zenralantiquariat), Leipzig, pp. 115 - 128.

198
of Afinogenov in the second of his studies, the two ceremonies can be

1 0 2
compared and contrasted. By looking at the two, some indication of

Methodios' motives may be deduced. The description of the ceremonies

surrounding Theodore's relics were outlined earlier in this chapter;

consequently the core of the following examination will emphasise the

differences and Methodios' conduct at Nikephoros' translation. Patriarch

Methodios personally initiated the movement to restore Nikephoros to

Constantinople. He approached the Empress Theodora and her councillors

with the proposition of transferring the dead patriarch, but the reason that

Methodios gave was that this matter concerned the state and the populace.

Methodios argued that Nikephoros had suffered for "the all praiseworthy

and blameless faith." Nikephoros now rested alone, the result of his

condemnation to exile and he was left, without recompense to honour

1 0 3
(olovci Tfj aujfj KcrraSiKTi e^opiag dTroAinTrdei dy^paaTov).

After receiving Theodora's permission, Methodios personally travelled to

the Monastery of St. Theodore, he was accompanied by many priests,

monastics and laypeople. A tearful Methodios approached the grave of

Nikephoros and spoke directly to the dead patriarch as if he were alive. He

compared Nikephoros and his zeal with the great Father of the Church of

1 0 2
Afinogenov, "KfiNITANTINOYnoAlZ|EmiKOnONlEXEl: Part II - From the Second Outbreak of
Iconoclasm to the Death of Methodios".
1 0 3
Theophanes Presbyteros, "Mnemeia Hagiologica nyn Proton Ekdidomena - Narratio de
translatione S Nicephori", p. 124, chapter 9: "...6 Travfepoc, Me0d8ioc,, SeoVrwc; dvEKoivwaaTo icai
0Eoad4>u)g napriyyuifoccro Tfj G E O O T E ^ E T PaaiA(5i ©EoSupor (ig ou n p o a f j K o v T $ K p a T E i K a i Tfj
I T O A I T E ( O ; . . . E V TTCiTptdpxctig NiKT)<t>6pov, utTEp Tf)^ TictvEUKAEoOg K a i diiwurjTou nfoTEug .. (iq Kai
(lETa G d v a T o v O I O V E I Tfj a d T f j K O T O S I K I ] e ^ o p f a g dnoAijiTidvEiv d y ^ p a a T o v . "

199
 1 0 4
the fifth century, St. John Chrysostomos. The choice of this saint was

not a casual one, in fact as with all of Methodios' allusions, whether patristic

or scriptura; in this instance the Patriarch carefully chose Chrysostomos.

The history of St. John's struggle with the imperial house was well known,

his repeated exile from Constantinople for standing against the Emperor

Theophilos and the Empress Eudoxia paralleled Nikephoros' struggle

against iconoclastic emperors. However, the similarities were startling in

the toils of their lives, deaths and Translations of the two Patriarchs.

1
Robert Payne has described Chrysostomos death in exile in this manner:

Then he [St. John] communicated in the Lord, and

said his last prayer, which closed with the words,
'Glory be to God for all things' and then having
105
crossed himself at the last. A m e n . . .

So on September 14, 407, died John of Antioch,

known as St. John Chrysostom, who defied
emperors and loved God. According to Palladius,
the news of his death spread like wildfire, and the
burial ceremonies in the shrine of Basilicus were
attended by a host of virgins, ascetics and men
renowned for their devout life, flocking from
Armenia, Pontus and Cilicia, and as far away as
Syria. For a little more than thirty years his body
remained in the shrine. Then at the beginning of
438 the relics were solemnly removed to

1 0 4
Ibid., p. 125: "..TTtEpcrnipfoiQ T<$ cifinf KEKOivwviiKuSq XpuaooToVty Iutfvvq, oSg tty 6\ioiy ^n'Aty
auv £K£I'VW nap'p' j\aiaad\ie\oq."
1 0 5
St. John Chrysostomos, Dialogos 38.

200
 Constantinople. Theodoret tells how the people of
Constantinople gathered in close-packed boats lit
with torches at the mouth of Bosphorus to see his
coming. The relics were deposited in the Church
of the Apostles, with those of emperors and
patriarchs; and a new Emperor laid his head on the
reliquary and implored forgiveness before God for
the wrongs committed by his mother and
106
father...

The scene now shifts a little over 400 years later to a different Patriarch,

Nikephoros, who also died in exile, and whose relics are now being

translated by his successor and friend back to Constantinople for burial in

the very same church. Continuing, Methodios made these declarations.

In the past, the emperor [Leo V] alienated from

God opposed you in life and foolishly expelled you
from the Church. He received repayment that his
outrage deserved, when he was in his turn
expelled by his miserable death from power and
life...Today the emperors attached by God by their
pious nature give you back the Church even after
death, and as if adopted by you through the Gospel
together with me present it to you...Let your city
have ...your blessed body...boasting of it more
107
than the imperial m a j e s t y .

0 6
Payne, R. (1957) The Holy Fire - The Story of the Fathers of the Eastern Church (Harper &
Brothers Publishers), New York, p. 234.
1 0 7
Theophanes Presbyteros, "Mnemeia Hagiologica nyn Proton Ekdidomena - Narratio de
translations S Nicephori.", p. 125 - 126, chapter 11: "ripwriv ^AAoTpiwuEvog T O O G E O O paotAEui;
dvTiicaTEOTTi ooi ^oivTi K a i Tfjc;'EKKAria(aq dnepiOK^TiTax; E K P ^ P A I I K K E V , 8Q K a i 5 ( K T ) V d^iav
i r a p o f v i a g E K T E T I K E V , dvT£KpAii8£i<; SuoTitv^ T E A E I Tfjg dpx<fc *ai T O O £fjv.. IifjiEpov P O O I A E T I ;
O S K E I W H E V O I 9E<3 8i'£i)a£P£(a$ Tpdnwv Kai TE0VE<3T( CTOI Tr|v'EKKAna(av 5i8daoiv, oX Kai O I K O V E I

S i d T O O E0ayy£A(ou U 1 O H O I T I 9 £ ' V T £ < ; O O I TauTtyv ouv E(iol napurrtSoi. ' E X ^ T W f| I T O A K ; aou.. T O

iravdApiov cncfjvdQ oou.. T T A E ' O V ii\q paaiAiKfK nEyaAEidtriToc, tui T O U T < V ppEvQuon^vii," trans.

201
After chanting hymns and reciting prayers, Nikephoros' relics were

respectfully borne by clergy, in procession, to the dockside. There they

placed the dead patriarch's remains on a specially commissioned ship of

the imperial navy. This dromon was met at the harbour by the young

Emperor Michael and officials of the court. Then the relics were again

carried in solemn procession lead by Methodios, but those carrying the

coffin were high officials of the court. They conveyed the patriarch's relics

to the Great Church from which Nikephoros "had been chased away, and

1 0 8
deprived of his archpriesthood." After two nights of lying in state and

prayers, the relics of Nikephoros were once again carried in procession

1 0 9
most probably along the Mese. With flowers and palms cast on the

street by the people lining the route, the cortege made its way to the

Church of the Holy Apostles for internment with the other revered Fathers

of the Church including St. John Chysostomos. The date of this event was

13 March 847 exactly 32 years, to the day of Nikephoros' banishment from

the Queen City by Leo V. Methodios chose this date carefully for its impact

and symbolism. Theophanes describes the ceremonies as so sumptuous

that the previous ones, either for emperors or clergy, could not rival it.

"..Ac, E I K O Q , ev 8ia<j>dpoi^ O T I jicxAicrra E T H T E paaiAeuai K a i UpeOai

Taken from Afinogenov, " K n N r T A N T I N O Y n O A I X | E m i K O n O N | E X E I - . Part II - From the Second

Outbreak of Iconoclasm to the Death of Methodios", pp. 69 - 70.
1 0 8
Theophanes Presbyteros, "Mnemeia Hagiologica nyn Proton Ekdidomena - Narratio de
translatione S Nicephori", p. 126: "6 T E 0£o<|>poupriTo<; p a a i A E u i ; M i x a i i A 6 vedq K a i o l tv
Htyicrroig UTTEpexovTEQ d ^ i w | i a a i n a T p i K i o f T E K a i A o f n o i , y£yr|9dT£Q u m i v T ( a £ o v , Aa|iTrd8a(;
y E p a i KaTt'xovEq K a i 8i* E O U T W V £n<i)iia5(ov tyipovreq \itjd T T ( O T E W Q K a i aEpdonaToc; T O T ( U I O V
EKEIVO yXwoadKO^Ev £v Tij nEydXq TE"W<; dn£9evTo ' E K K A t i a i g , d<|>' r{q K a i E ^ E A ^ X a T a i Tfjg
dpXlEpaT£(aQ OTEplOKOH^OQ."
1 0 9
Mango, The Brazen House - A Study of the Vestibule of Constantinople, p. 80 (fig. 4, s e e map
of Constantinople).

202
 1 1 0
y£y£vr|(i£va)v." In his excellent analysis of these events, Professor

Afinogenov makes the following observations:

There is hardly any need to explain that the whole

ceremony was designed to demonstrate the
triumph of the Church as personified by the
deceased patriarch, over the state. But the
comparison of the two accounts reveals another
aim of Methodios - all the pomp and splendour
was probably supposed to dwarf the importance of
Studiou and its glorious hegumenos. The patriarch
obviously endeavoured to present the translation of
his predecessor as a matter state importance in
contrast to the essentially private nature of
1 1 1
Theodore's translation.

Almost exactly three months later, his complex life ended. On 14 June,

847, Patriarch Methodios I of Constantinople died and was gathered to the

Lord, leaving the re-integration of iconoclastic clergy and the Studite

Schism as unresolved issues. These conflicts would play a major part in

the patriarchal years of both, his successors, Ignatius and Photios the

Great. Nonetheless, one lasting tribute to Methodios and his determined

policies was that after a bitter conflict of over a hundred years, he assured

that iconoclasm would never again seriously threaten Byzantium or the

Church.

1 1 0
Theophanes Presbyteros, "Mnemeia Hagiologica nyn Proton Ekdidomena - Narratio de
translations S Nicephori", p. 127.
, 1 1
Afinogenov, "KflN£TANTINOYnoAlX|EniZKonON|EXEl: Part II - From the S e c o n d Outbreak of
Iconoclasm to the Death of Methodios", p. 70.

203
 Chapter Four

THE D E V E L O P M E N T AND I N F L U E N C E S O F METHODIAN

ECCLESIOLOGY

Ecclesiology Introduced

This, beloved is the preaching of the truth, and this

the character of our salvation, and this is the way
of life, which the prophets announced and Christ
confirmed and the apostles handed over
(TTapaSi'Swm) and the Church in the whole world,
hands down (cyxeipi'Cw) to her children. This it is
1
necessary to keep with all strictness...

This quotation from St Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, who lived in the latter

part of the second century, became part of the sacred deposit of faith. It

articulated an integral part of the sacred responsibility of the Church and

her leaders. This deposit, its reception, its protection and its transmission

is central to the understanding of the nature of the Church. This idea is a

thread that runs through Old and New Testament writings and reaches its

zenith with Christ. After Pentecost, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit,

throughout the Epistles of St. Paul, the Catholic Epistles and the teachings

of the Fathers of the Church, this most important aspect of theology was

further explained and refined.

1
St. Irenaeus of Lyons (1997) On the Apostolic Preaching, trans, and intro. J . Behr (St. Vladimir's
Seminary Press), Crestwood, NY, p. 100.

204
 ..and what you have heard from me before many
witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able
2
to teach others also.

Fr. Congar, the noted Roman Catholic theologian, points out how this

understanding is re-enforced, "probably a little later, the Epistle of Jude

exhorts the faithful 'to contend for the faith which was once for all delivered

to the saints, Tfj a-nat, TKxpcx&oQziol) T T I C T E I . " ' 3

What does this foundational thinking have to do with Patriarch Methodios?

How were his actions and the motivation for his behaviour in the mid ninth

century impacted by the historical development of this aspect of the faith?

It is my conviction that the Patriarch was fundamentally influenced by his

awareness of the nature of the Church, Her mission and most importantly

by his perception of the awesome responsibility of the hierarchs to preserve

and protect the Body of Christ. Methodios' familiarity with the Scriptures

has been demonstrated many times in his writings. This would, no doubt,

have allowed the admonition of St Paul to echo in his heart,

Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in

which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to
shepherd the church of the Lord which he obtained
with his own blood. I know that after my departure
fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing

2
2 Tim. 2, 2: "Kai rjicouoag n a p ' £uoG 5id noMuiv (iapTupwv, T a O T a TiapdBou T T I O T O T C ;
dvGpwTroig oiTiveg l i c a v o i E O O V T O I K a i ET^poui; 5i8d£ai." English taken from the ( R S V ) . Here
one can s e e the core of the duty of the episcopal charge.
3
Congar, Y. (1966) Tradition and Traditions An historical and theological essay, trans. M. Naseby
and T. Rainborough (Bums and Oates), London, p. 20, s e e Jude 1, 3; 2 Peter 2, 21.

205
 the flock; and from among your own selves will
arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away
4
the disciples after them.

This biblical exhortation, as well as many others, combined with the patristic

teachings gave Methodios the impetus to the take the steps he took. The

urgent requisite to fulfil the proper role of the bishop and to safeguard the

Church from a re-emergence of the iconoclastic heresy proved a powerful

raison d'etre for the Patriarch's actions. How his thinking emerged and the

catalysts for his decisions will be the gist of the balance of this chapter.

Ecclesiology is defined in The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church as

5
a term used for the Theology of the C h u r c h . In the very early days of Her

history, an insight into the nature of the Church began to materialise and

expanded with time. Theological crises, Ecumenical Councils and the

writings of the Fathers developed an understanding of this term. By the

eighth and ninth century controversy over iconoclasm, the perception of the

nature of the Church was central to the response of the players in the

dispute. Starting with Patriarch Germanos and ending with Patriarch

Methodios, the awareness of the ecclesiology of the Church evolved and

exerted a great influence on the iconodules and their response to the

heresy. Being the iconodulic patriarch whose fate it was to purify finally the

Church after the second phase of iconoclasm, no one was more influenced

by the thinking of his predecessors than Methodios. Their experiences

4
Acts 20, 28 - 31, overseers = bishops.
5
Cross and Livingstone (eds.), The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, p. 441.

206
affected his understanding of ecclesiology, of his responsibility as Patriarch,

as well as forming a powerful prototype for his discernment and his

rationale.

Patriarch Germanos

Patriarch Germanos responded to the beginning indications of iconoclasm

prior to its official pronouncement. He confronted three hierarchs who were

suspected of initiating iconoclastic teachings in their dioceses. The

Patriarch wrote letters to Metropolitan John of Synnada, Bishop

Constantine of Nakoleia, and Bishop Thomas of Klaudiopolis in which he

6
admonished their iconoclastic views. As has been demonstrated at this

stage of the conflict, the primary justification by the iconoclasts was the

evoking of Old Testament prohibitions of graven images. In these letters,

written to his fellow bishops, Germanos repeatedly resorted to a didactic

tone in which he dressed down these Bishops by tracing the traditions from

the Old Testament patriarchs and prophets, to the New Testament

Incarnational Economy, the witness of the apostles and the teachings

fathers. Germanos emphasised the solemn responsibility the bishops held

not to scandalise their flocks, to protect the souls in their care and the

7
reality of the bishop's accountability to God at His Final Judgement.

Migne (ed.), Patrologiae cursus completus: Series graeca, cols. 156 - 198 = Mansi, J . D. (ed.),
(1759 - 1798) Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova et Amplissima Collectio, Florence and Vienna, vol. xiii
pp.197 ff.
7
Migne (ed.), Patrologiae cursus completus: Series graeca, col. 164, Epistle to John of Synnada:
"...AET ydp fi(iag (iciAAov m3oTT|p6T£pov ctUTfj npooaxQfSai, TTJ irctpd T O O 0 E O O KcrrctKpfaEi
EOOJ1EVT1V O T T E U 0 U V O V .

207
In his letter to Bishop Thomas of Klaudiopolis, Germanos utilises many Old

and New Testament examples of faithful adherence to the Tradition of the

Church. He states for Christians there are witnesses, even unto blood, who

upheld the power of images. The resistance to sin against the Church

followed the declaration of the Apostle [St. Paul], and the Word of Truth; it

also served the prophetic word, provided a pious way of life and set upright

8
the righteous works of the true servants of God. In these three letters,

written around 726, Germanos left no doubt as to his sentiments.

Patriarch Germanos confronted Leo III, the first iconoclastic emperor. The

Patriarch became a stalwart defending the Church against encroachment

by the imperial apparatus and heresy as he saw it. This was accomplished

by two theological treatises, neither, directly concerning images but each

presented the case for images in a surreptitious way. The first dealt with

the nature of the Divine Liturgy. The title of this work is 'Iaropia

'EKK^rjaiaarrjKfj Kai MueTitdJ Oewpia, (Ecclesiastical History and Mystical

Contemplation). This work is believed to have been written by Germanos

after he was compelled to leave the patriarchal throne by Leo III. In his

introduction of the translation of this work, Dr. Paul Meyendorff makes this

statement:

Moreover, the commentary appears at a time of

1
Ibid., col. 172: "Al bt irapd XpioriavoT<; dy(u>v dv5p<3v tiicdvEg T<3V T E M^XP ? a'ipcrroi;
d v T i a T a T u v Tfj d ^ a p T f a K O T O T I ^ V T O O ' A T T O O T O A O U <t>wvnv, K a i TWV T<V Ady<n> if\c, dAr\0Ei'ac;
5iaKovr)a(i£'v(i)v, Trpo<)>r|T<3v T E A^yu> K a i d n o a T o A w v , E I T E K a i tv EOOEPET p i u K a i KOTopGwoti
f p y w v dya0(3v dAr)9wq 0 E O U 8 o u A u v d v a 8 E i x 0 E V T a ) v . . . . "

208
 great flux in the life of the Byzantine church, at the
outbreak of the great iconoclastic controversies, a
period which marked a strong shift in theology and
piety. Seen in this context, the document is
revealed also as a theological statement. In fact, it
is only in this context that Germanus' commentary
9
can be properly read and understood.

Examining portions of Germanos' composition, this assertion becomes

comprehensible. In the first chapter of his composition, On the Divine

Liturgy, there was an opening salvo by Germanos:

The church is an earthly heaven in which the

supercelestial God dwells and walks about...It is
prefigured in the patriarchs, foretold by the
prophets, founded in the apostles, adorned by the
1 0
hierarchs, and fulfilled in the martyrs.

How can this seemingly theological description of the Church be interpreted

as a statement of defiance toward Leo and the iconoclasts? As can be

seen, the aged Germanos emphasises the Church's "roots and

foundations". "It is prefigured in the patriarchs, foretold by the prophets,

founded in the apostles, adorned by the hierarchs and fulfilled in the

martyrs." This catalogue of the traditional fount of authority within the

Church is obvious not in its inclusion, but most significantly in the exclusion

St. Germanos of Constantinople (1984) On the Divine Liturgy, trans. P. Meyendorff (St.
Vladimir's Seminary P r e s s ) , Crestwood, NY, p. 10.

1 0 T
Ibid., p. 57: '"EKKAriai'a EOTIV £ir(ytioc; o u p a v d g , i v <$ 6 t n o u p d v i o c ; Ot.dc, EVOIKET Kai TI^V

EUTTEpiwaTET . . . tv iraTpidpxaic; TipoTunw0ETaa, iv -npo^r\raic, TrpoKTipux0Eioa, £v dnooToAoii;

GEHEAKOGETOO, l E p d p x a i i ; KaTaKoapti0£'iaa<; K a i EV pdpTuai T£A£ia)8£Taa."

209
of any mention of the role of the emperor. Germanos knew that Leo's

concept of king-priest was a concept that needed countering, so it is

conceivable that he intentionally answered Leo's notion by outlining the

Church's true ecclesiology.

Later in his work, the Patriarch speaks of the role of Tradition. He

describes the custom of praying facing east, which was and is followed by

the entire Church. This practice is not part of the "written tradition", yet

Germanos describes it in this way: "Praying toward the East is handed

11
down [emphasis mine] by the holy apostles, as is everything else."

Germanos pointedly continues his lesson in theology by relating the

Incarnation as a direct teaching within the Sacred Tradition of the Church.

...The prophets are indicating His incarnation, of

course, which we proclaim, having accepted and
comprehended it through the ministers and eye-
1 2
witnesses of the Word, who understood it.

Next, the patriarch portrays the role and source of the priest's vocation in

this manner:

...The priest teaches the people about the

threefold knowledge of God, which he learned
1 3
through grace [i.e. the Holy Spirit]...

1 1
Ibid., pp. 62 - 63: "To KOTO dvaToAdg £i3xEO0ai napaSeSonEvov £OT(V, wg K a i TO AOITTO TI3V

dy(uv d i r o o T d A w v . . . "
1 2
Ibid., pp. 72 - 73: "...lfyoo Tr|V a d p K u a i v auroO 5T)AOUVTE(; ) f)v f\\ieTq dTToSE^dfiEvoi K a i
\iaQ6vjeq 5(a rav limipETuiv OOTOTTTUSV TOO Adyou yEvojiEvuiv S i a T o p w v TaO"rr|v d v a K t i p u T T o j i E v . "
1 3
Ibid., p. 91: "'O tspEug 8i6daK£i T O V Aadv -rriv bid 7f\<; x^piTog 6£oyvu)a(av TI^V
TpiaSiKitv..."

210
At the end of his treatise, Germanos delineates, once again, the chosen

offices of God's people. Before his analysis of the Lord's Prayer, the

Patriarch verbalises that the elect of God are resting awaiting the Second

Coming of Christ. "The souls of Christians are called together to assemble

with the prophets, apostles, and hierarchs in order to recline with Abraham,

Isaac, and Jacob [patriarchs of the Old Testament] at the mystical banquet

1 4
of the Kingdom of Christ." Once again, where is the office of the

emperor? The Patriarch is clear in his description of the succession of

inheritors of the tradition of the Church and he pointedly does not single out

the emperor for special consideration.

The other work of Germanos which should be examined at this time is De

15
Haeresibus et Synodis. This discursive opus, also written after

Germanos' deposition, reviews the history of heresies in the life of the

Church. One can read between the lines in this theological history lesson

and see the application to the "new" heresy threatening the Church. When

Germanos comes to the events of his epoch, he describes Constantine of

Nakoleia with these unflattering words:

There appeared a certain bishop of Nakoleia, a

certain small town in the eparchia of Phrygia, a
man totally lacking in understanding stupidly trying

1 4
Ibid., pp. 100 - 101:"...Kai auyKaAouvTai HETO Trpo<|>r|TtiSv K a i dTrocrrdAiov K a i l e a p a x w v TUV

XpiaTiavaiv al ipuxal OUVEAGETV Kai d v a K A i G f j v a i ji£Td 'ABpadu K a i ' I a a a K K a i 'IaKtofS tv Tfj

puaTiKfj Tpanei;!] Tfjg p a a i A e i a i ; X p i a T o O . "
1 5
Migne (ed.), Patrologiae cursus completus: Series graeca, P G 98, cols. 39 - 88.

211
 to conceal his own intention, glaring at the sight of
the letters of the God-inspired Holy Scriptures, who
wrongly taught innovations, against the sacred
pronouncements, and who armed himself to resist
1 6
against the Tradition of the Fathers.

This scathing condemnation of the bishop is noteworthy for several

reasons. First, Professor Gero points out rightly that Constantine is not

mentioned by name, only by diocese and in his note Gero concludes the

1 7
role of Constantine may not have been as central as appears. This idea

may have validity, but the rest of the passage has a pointed theological

implication. Germanos takes great pains to indicate his challenge and

objection to Constantine's actions. The Patriarch articulates that the bishop

was wrongly introducing teaching innovations against the accepted dogma

and that this was against the Tradition of the Fathers. These phrases,

which I have italicised, begin the articulation of the essential meaning,

which defines the paramount obligations of the office of bishop. Here at the

very outset of the iconoclastic conflict, a patriarch identifies the grievous

violation of the bishop's duties by an iconoclastic hierarch, according to the

Church's accepted practice. To quote the Apostle Paul's instructions to

Timothy as he is prepared for leadership in the nascent Church,

1 6
Ibid., P G 98, col. 7 7 a : " 'Ave<|>u ydp Tig EITIOKOTIOQ NaKwAefag OOTW KCIAOUJIE'VTIQ ITOA£XVTI<; Tflg
O p u y w v i T i a p x i a ? , dvi^p OI)K E'AAdyitiog, dAoyfa 5 E jidAAov TI^V EOUTOO ^KKCXAUTTTEIV <(>pdvr|aiv
4>avTad;d(i£vo(;, oq ipiAfj Tfj TOO ypd(i|iaTO<; 9£wp(a EV TUV GEOTTVEUOTWV rpa<t>wv dvayvwoEi
TfpoaKEXTivwg, K a i v o u p y E l v n a p d T a iEponpEndii; EKTTE^aanEva TrapESoyndTii^E, K a i TaTq i r a T p i K a l g
K a T E ^ a v ( a T a a 9 a i T i a p a 5 d a £ a i v dv8ionA(^£TO-..."
1 7
Gero, Byzantine Iconoclasm during the Reign of Leo III - with particular attention to the Oriental
Sources, p. 88.

212
 Follow the pattern of the sound words which you
have heard from me, in the faith, and love which
are in Christ Jesus; guard the truth that has been
entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells in
1 8
us.

"Guard the Truth" is the bishop's charge. This portrayal is in direct conflict

with the reported answer of Patriarch Germanos to the Emperor Leo III who

sought his acquiescence to the new anti-icon policy.

But Christ's courageous servant was in no way

persuaded by Leo's abominable error after
expounding correctly the true doctrine, he resigned
from the episcopacy and surrendered his pallium.
Following many words of instruction he said, 'If I
am Jonah, cast me into the s e a . For without an
ecumenical council it is impossible for me, O
emperor, to innovate [emphasis mine] in matters of
19
faith.'

The Patriarch did not yield even at the cost of his patriarchal office. He saw

his duty and responsibility clearly. Germanos continues his castigation of

the errant bishops in this manner.

Maddened by pride, they [the bishops] do not

cease to raise dissension among the people of

2 Tim. 1, 1 3 - 1 4 .

Theophanes the Confessor, The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor, p. 565.

213
 God, giving e a c h other courage, they stray from

the understanding of the truth and without restraint

they dare to violate that which is sacred.

Therefore, among s o m e people at court and those

who would m a n a g e the affairs from on high, a

s e n s e l e s s anger is contrived against those people

20
who would act p i o u s l y .

G e r o , in his work previously cited, s e e k s to examine the political motivation

of G e r m a n o s . Therefore, he concentrates his analysis on the last s e n t e n c e

of the p a s s a g e . However, if one looks, not at the last s e n t e n c e , but at the

very first s e n t e n c e of the paragraph, the incrimination and onus for the

deviation from the "truth" are placed squarely on the s h o u l d e r s of the

hierarchs. T h i s c e n s u r e w a s in keeping with the record of previous

h e r e s i e s that Patriarch G e r m a n o s had described in his polemic. These

h e r e s i e s grew out of deviations from the truth of the C h u r c h by hierarchs or

clergy; G e r m a n o s s h o w s that iconoclasm might very well be starting along

the s a m e c o u r s e . T h e role and influence of the iconoclastic emperors

cannot be disputed, but perhaps another dimension should also be

considered. G e r m a n o s w a s the patriarch at the time of the beginning of

iconoclasm, but his c o n c e r n s and c e n s u r e s would be e c h o e d by his

successors. We can s e e they are directed toward the hierarchy's!

responsibility and trust. It will be demonstrated how this progressive

tendency would influence Methodios.

2 0
Migne (ed.), Patrologiae cursus completus: Series graeca., P G 98, cols.80 b ff: "Ol hi £^
dAa^ovtfa? dnovevoim^voi, SixoaTaa(a<; TOIQ AaoTg t-ntyeipeiv oi) i r a u o v T a r UTTO y a p Tfjg ofyQv
ov\i\iop(ac, auveXiaadjiEvoi, EKOVTEQ irpdc; TI^V OUVEOEIV Tfji; dAijOctag 8 i a ^ a p T d v o u a i , x a i TWV

Ispwv dvaGripdTwv d5e<3g K a T a T o A j i u a i v E^dnTEaGai. Aid Km air' a i i T f j g rf\c, PaaiAefac; K a i

ndvTwv TIDV EV uiTEpoxi] KpcrrouvTiov T a TTpdyiicrra, E K n a v ^ g dyavaKTnoig TOTI; EuAaPwg Stdysiv
TTpoaipou|i£'voiQ £ m v £ v d r i T a i . "

214
 T a r a s i o s and N i c a e a II

With the unforeseen death of Constantine V ' s s o n E m p e r o r L e o IV, fortune

s w e r v e d in favour of the icon supporters. With the a c c e s s i o n of the young

Constantine VI and his mother E m p r e s s Irene, a s regent, the return of the

use of icons in the C h u r c h took centre stage. T h e initial task of the new

rulers w a s choosing and securing the elevation of an iconophilic patriarch.

The nomination of T a r a s i o s by the iconoclastic Patriarch Paul, who

resigned to end his d a y s a s a monk in repentance b e c a u s e of his

cooperation with the iconoclasts; is related in the Vita of Tarasios by

Ignatios the D e a c o n . In Paul's explanation to Irene and the young E m p e r o r

he is quoted a s saying:

My words allude to T a r a s i o s , the first among the

s e c r e t a r i e s of your God-given reign. I and every

prudent man know that he will administer the

C h u r c h propitiously and with the spiritual rod he

will expel the monstrous n o n s e n s e of heresies,

while, with the staff of a t e a c h e r and s h e p h e r d , he

will drive the most holy flock in and out of the

2 1
temples and sheepfolds of truth.

This fortuitous endorsement helped accomplish the selection of the able

2 2
T a r a s i o s , who w a s previously a protoasecretis in imperial s e r v i c e .

2 1
Ignatios the Deacon, The Life of Patriarch Tarasios - (BHG 1698), p. 175. S e e footnote 22 for
Greek text translation.
2 2
Ibid., trans, p. 81: " T a p d o i o v 6 t\i6q AoyoQ TOV £TTI TEV jiuaTTipiwv irpaiTov Tfjg G E O A T I I T T O U
PaaiAEi'ai; un<3v UTTGUVITTETGU EKETVOV ot5a Kai TTS<; E O <t>povwv EUKOU'POK; Tfjc; EKKATjcrfac;
dv0i'^Ea9ai Kai TTJ |iEV Aoyiicf] (irifS5iy TOV TWV aipEOEwv dveXdam 0T|piU)TaTov <|>ATIVO«|>OV TI]

215
A s a precondition of his a c c e p t a n c e of the Patriarchal dignity, T a r a s i o s

made one thing clear from the outset.

I behold and s e e that the C h u r c h which is founded

upon the rock, namely Christ our G o d , is now

divided and torn asunder; that we at times s p e a k in

one manner while our fellow-believers, the

2 3
Christians of the E a s t s p e a k differently and the
2 4
westerners agree with them, w h e r e a s we are

estranged from them all and everyday

anathematised by them. A terrible thing is an

a n a t h e m a ; it drives one far from G o d , it p u s h e s

one a w a y from the kingdom of h e a v e n and leads to

utter d a r k n e s s . T h e C h u r c h in its rule and law

d o e s not recognize d i s s e n s i o n or dispute, but just

a s it is wont to c o n f e s s a single c o n s e n s u s on all

e c c l e s i a s t i c a l matters. Nothing is s o acceptable

and agreeable to G o d a s our being united and

becoming one Catholic C h u r c h , as indeed we

c o n f e s s in the symbol of our pure faith. Wherefore

we ask...that an e c u m e n i c a l council be c o n v e n e d
25
by our most pious and orthodox e m p e r o r s . . .

In speaking of the prime mover of the h e r e s y , T a r a s i o s n a m e s L e o but s a y s

this, concerning the violation:

5 i 8 a a K a A i K i j 8e x a i Troi|javTiKfj P a K T i i p f a EloeXdaaai Kai ^ t A d a a i npog ariKoug x a i jiavSpaq

dAr|0£(a<; T O 0 £ I O T O ( T O V i r o ( | i v i o v " .
2 3
i.e. Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem.
2 4
i.e. Rome.
2 5
Theophanes the Confessor, The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor, p. 633. This is
confirmed in the Imperial S a c r a to Nicaea II, s e e Percival (ed.) A Select Library of the Nicene and
Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided
Church vol. 14, p. 531.

216
 ...And since they [the icons] have been destroyed

by the hand of an emperor, the matter is again

under investigation, namely that they dared,

according to their whims, to abolish an ancient

custom that had been handed down in the C h u r c h .

26
But G o d ' s truth is not bound, a s the apostle s a i t h .

Thus, Tarasios was fulfilling the requirement that his p r e d e c e s s o r ,

G e r m a n o s , had enunciated y e a r s earlier, when he confronted L e o III. But

what is noteworthy is that T a r a s i o s stated in this p a s s a g e the nature of the

violation of the iconoclasts: "...they dared to abolished an ancient custom

that had been handed down in the C h u r c h " . T h i s "ancient custom" is a part

of the deposit of faith, Holy Tradition. In the mind of T a r a s i o s , the

iconoclasts were guilty of this primary heresy. After s o m e time to prepare

2 7
and an abortive attempt to call a synod in the capital, N i c a e a II w a s

a s s e m b l e d in the autumn of 787. T h i s conclave had representatives from

the Pentarchy, hierarchs, both iconoclast and iconodule, clergy, m o n a s t i c s

and s o m e laity. According to T h e o p h a n e s the C o n f e s s o r :

The synod introduced no new doctrine, but

maintained u n s h a k e n the doctrines of the holy

b l e s s e d F a t h e r s ; it rejected the new h e r e s y and

anathematised the three false patriarchs, namely

2 6
Theophanes the Confessor, The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor, p. 633. Biblical
reference - 2 Tim. 2, 9.
2 7
Ignatios the Deacon, The Life of Patriarch Tarasios - (BHG 1698), p. 182.

217
 A n a s t a s i o s , Constantine and Niketas and everyone
2 8
who s h a r e d their view.

This council presided over and strictly guided by T a r a s i o s ' hand, provided a

forum by which to communicate his sentiments about ecclesiology. This

may not have been done overtly, but the Patriarch's imprint c a n be clearly

s e e n in the record of the d i s c u s s i o n s during the various council s e s s i o n s .

T h e council itself defined the task it a c c o m p l i s h e d with t h e s e words, a s c a n

be s e e n strikingly similar to those u s e d by T h e o p h a n e s above:

A s for o u r s e l v e s , we gain nothing but the certainty

that we, who have c o m e to a reverence of G o d ,

introduce no innovation, but rather remain obedient

to the teachings of the Apostles and the fathers

2 9
and the traditions of the Church.

T o e m p h a s i s e the continuity with patristic t e a c h i n g s , T a r a s i o s allowed to be

placed in the florilegia of the council, scriptural and patristic proofs,

supporting the u s e of images within the C h u r c h .

...during the beginning of the fourth s e s s i o n of

N i c a e a II. At that time Patriarch T a r a s i o s ordered

the presentation of the books which s p o k e in

Theophanes the Confessor, The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor, p. 637.

2 9
S a h a s , Icons and Logos, Sources in Eighth Century Iconoclasm, p. 52, - Sixth S e s s i o n , First
Volume. Italics are mine to illustrate the significant influence of the Tradition upon the participants
in the Council.

218
 favour of the images (Mansi XIII 4 B ) : . . . y £ v r i a £ T a i

be TOOTO TruJg; T r p o a a y e a G w a a v sic, jiEaov rjpiv

rrpog d K p d a a i v T<DV TT£piSd^a)v dyi'wv n a T E p a j v ai.

Bi'BAor Kai EE, auT(3v dpudjiEvoi, TTOTiawuEv

3 0
EKaOTOg TT)[lGv TO KC(9' T ^ a g TTOl(iVlOV...

T h e F a t h e r s who were quoted included S t s . Gregory the Theologian, B a s i l

the Great, Cyril of Alexandria, J o h n C h r y s o s t o m o s and A t h a n a s i o s the

3 1
Great. T h i s quotation from E p i p h a n i o s the D e a c o n and C h a m b e r l a i n , a

post most probably appointed and directed by T a r a s i o s , gives us a

recapitulation of the iconodules' attitude toward the iconoclastic Council of

Hiereia - B l a c h e r n a e (754),

F o r no more than seventy y e a r s h a v e p a s s e d s i n c e

3 2
the holy Sixth E c u m e n i c a l C o u n c i l , when they

[the iconoclasts] gathered to s p e a k against the

venerable icons. That it w a s not during those

y e a r s that tradition of the reproduction of icons w a s

handed down is clearly evident to all. Rather it

w a s long before the Sixth Council; or to s a y the

truth it w a s since the time of the preaching of the

Apostles, a s we have learned from looking at the

holy c h u r c h e s in every place, as the Holy Fathers

have testified and as the historians, whose writing

3 3
have survived until today,..

Alexakis, Codex Parisinus Graecus 1115 and Its Archetype, p. 227.

3 1
S a h a s , Icons and Logos, Sources in Eighth Century Iconoclasm, pp. 98, 123 and 145.
3 2
Constantinople II 680 - 681 AD, + Council of Trullo (Quinisext Council) considered together a s
a whole Council in the East: s e e canon 82 previously discussed Percival (ed.) A Select Library of
the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the
Undivided Church., vol. 14, p. 401.
3 3
S a h a s , Icons and Logos, Sources in Eighth Century Iconoclasm, p. 59, Sixth Session First
Volume. Again, my italics for emphasis - s e e note above.

219
Professor Alexakis m a k e s a relevant observation concerning T a r a s i o s '

diligence to ensure an archive of the procedures free of future

condemnation. T h e "rule" of the organising committee, undeniably under

T a r a s i o s ' influence, w a s that testimonia on loose s h e e t s of paper could not

be introduced into the record. T h i s a b u s e w a s practised at Hiereia -

B l a c h e r n a e and resulted in s e g m e n t s and quotations being taken out of

context. T a r a s i o s allowed entire books to be introduced " 5 i a T O U Adyou T O

3 4
dAii0£g (for the s a k e of truth)". T h e Patriarch bent over b a c k w a r d s to

safeguard the integrity of the council's documentary e v i d e n c e and its

continuity with the patristic teachings. Looking at s o m e of the language

within the Horos of the S e c o n d N i c a e a n Council the strict a d h e r e n c e to

Tradition is prominent. T h i s resulted in a buttressed explication by the

iconophiles. T h e p a s s a g e reads a s follows:

In summary, we preserve all the traditions of the

C h u r c h , which for our s a k e s h a v e been d e c r e e d in

written or unwritten form without introducing an

innovation...Be this a s it may, and continuing along

the royal pathway, following both the teaching of

our holy F a t h e r s which is inspired by G o d and the

traditions of the catholic C h u r c h - for we know that

this tradition is of the holy Spirit dwelling in her - in

absolute precision and harmony with the spirit we

3 5
declare...

Alexakis, Codex Parisinus Graecus 1115 and Its Archetype, pp. 228 - 229.

S a h a s , Icons and Logos, Sources in Eighth Century Iconoclasm, pp. 178 - 179.

220
In his article "Images of the C h u r c h in the S e c o n d Nicene Council and in

the Libri Carolini", Dr. Patrick Henry offers s o m e cogent and perceptive

insights into his evaluation of the viewpoints of the participants of the

council. In s e v e r a l p a s s a g e s , he a s s e r t s the following suppositions that are

worthy of examination:

Indeed, the s h a r p e s t contrast of all between the

ACN [Acta Concilii Nicaeni] and the L C [Librii

Carolinii] may well be their different views of

prefigurement...The ACN, on the contrary,

consider that until the Incarnation, true religion had

to be "spiritual" in a quite restrictive s e n s e , since

the error of idolatry w a s a l w a y s a threat. But the

reconstruction of the world by redemption e x c e e d s

the original formation; all things h a v e been m a d e

new, s o the relation of created man to the creative

world is fundamentally c h a n g e d from what it w a s

before.

Henry continues his observations in this manner:

T h e A C N continually call the church back to the

c o m p a n y of the Fathers: it is they to whom we

must listen, they with whom we must be in

harmony...

T h e conclusions r e a c h e d are intriguing:

221
 It is the F a t h e r s of N i c a e a who effectively divide

time into e r a s , while the L C s e e no fundamental

difference between the age of Abel and the age of

Charlemagne. E v e n more significant, however, is

the fact that the ACN allow for real historical

corruption of the church... T h e promise that the

Holy Spirit will lead the church into truth is no

guarantee that the church cannot fall into error.

The F a t h e r s of N i c a e a are suggesting that on

o c c a s i o n (such a s their own time) the Holy Spirit

must intervene in history, and specifically in the

history of the church, not simply on behalf of the

church. T h e image of the Fall, typologically the

beginning of history of history, c a n be applied to

the c h u r c h , which is thereby caught in the web of

3 6
history, and only G o d c a n extricate it.

T h e idee regue of the synthesis of G o d ' s activity, through the action of His

Holy Spirit, and m a n ' s co-operative effort is a b a s i c tenet of Orthodox

theology. A good example of the synergy between mankind and G o d ' s

activity c a n be s e e n in the role of the Theotokos in salvation economy.

Only with her c o n c u r r e n c e could the Incarnation of Christ h a v e taken place.

Responding to the Archangel Gabriel's announcement, the young virgin

agreed to participate with G o d in the salvation of the world.

Henry, P. (1977) "Images of the Church in the Second Nicene Council and in the Libri Carolini,"
In Law Church and Society, Essays in Honor of Stephen Kuttner, eds. K. Penninglos, and R.
Somerville (University of Pennsylvania Press), Philadelphia, PA, pp. 237 - 252, pp. 244 & 246.

222
 And Mary s a i d , 'Behold, I am the handmaid of the
3 7
Lord; let it be to me according to your word.'..

Suffice it to s a y ; what is of prime value with this example is the

c o n s c i o u s n e s s of the principles under which the F a t h e r s worked. The

a w a r e n e s s of their obligation to the Tradition of the C h u r c h w a s not a

c a s u a l one, but one s t e e p e d in a theological understanding of the history of

doctrine and dogma.

An additional thorny i s s u e , which Patriarch T a r a s i o s f a c e d during the

Nicene Council, w a s the question of the lapsed iconoclastic clergy. Ignatios

the biographer of the Patriarch e x p r e s s e s the opinion that T a r a s i o s w a s

indeed mild in his treatment of the obstreperous hierarchs and clergy.

...during nor after the council did they [the

iconodules] bring forth an ill judged a c c u s a t i o n

concerning the former h e r e s y against m e m b e r s of

the clergy or those presiding over a bishopric nor

did they excommunicate from the ecclesiastical

pasture those ordained by heretics, but, following

the dispensations of the s y n o d s and the F a t h e r s ,

3 7
Luke 1, 37; May, H. and Metzger, B. (eds.) (1973) The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the
Apocrypha (Oxford University Press), New York, p. 1241. For an elaboration of this doctrine in
Orthodox theology, refer to the hymns of the Nativity According to the Flesh (Christmas) in:
st
...(1969) The Festal Menaion, 1 edition, trans. Mother Mary and Archimandrite Kallistos Ware
(Faber and Faber), London.

223
 they e m b r a c e d with open arms a s brothers and

fellow prelates those who had returned to <the fold

of> the pious belief and d e e m e d e a c h worthy of his

3 8
on s e e and office...

Here, in this one act of economia, is a s c e n a r i o , which w a s to h a v e a great

impact on the reactions of the subsequent iconophilic patriarchs,

Nikephoros and Methodios.

Nikephoros and Theodore the Studite F a c e I c o n o c l a s m II

In the works of t h e s e two contemporary figures the concept of E c c l e s i o l o g y

and Tradition may be the best documented. T h e s e church l e a d e r s left an

aggregation of material s o that their views may be d i s c e r n e d and a n a l y s e d .

Both Nikephoros and Theodore were w i t n e s s e s to the proceedings of

N i c a e a II. Nikephoros s e r v e d a s the palace s p o k e s p e r s o n (mandator);

previously, he had been a subordinate of T a r a s i o s in the Imperial

3 9
Secretariat. Theodore, by all indications, did not personally participate in

N i c a e a II, but s i n c e he w a s the nephew of Plato of Sakkoudion, whom we

4 0
know participated; he w a s intimately cognisant of the proceedings.

Ignatios the Deacon, The Life of Patriarch Tarasios - (BHG 1698), p. 184, also s e e Greek text,
pp. 1 0 7 - 108.
3 9
Featherstone, "The Refutation of the Council of 815 by Nicephorus," , p. xxiv, note 21, also see
Alexander, "The Iconoclastic Council of St. Sophia (815) and its Definition (Horos)", p. 38.
4 0
Auzepy, M.-F. (1988) "Le Place des Moines a Nicee II (787)", Byzantion, tome Iviii, pp. 5 - 2 1 . ,
p. 9.

224
 Le premier liste, celle des c h e f s de file des

presents, comprend six higoumenes de

Constantinople, deux de Bithynie, un de Nicee, et

4 1
un inconnu.

E v e n though both T h e o d o r e and Nikephoros wished to s e e the end of the

h e r e s y of iconoclasm, not all w a s tranquil after the council. I believe that

Professor Henry h a s described the essence of the initial arguement

between Theodore the monk and the patriarchal coterie.

What T h e o d o r e found hard to accept w a s the fact

that it w a s T a r a s i o s who had done what he,

Theodore thought he himself was supremely

qualified to do. It w a s an 'economizer' who had

reconciled the C h u r c h in Byzantium to that in

Rome. The conclusion w a s inescapable, but

T h e o d o r e tried to avoid it: the restoration of icons

and of unity w a s primarily the work of men w h o s e

devotion to the C h u r c h he doubted. Theodore w a s

firmly committed to what they had a c c o m p l i s h e d

but it annoyed him intensely that it w a s they who

4 2
had done it.

Theodore was not easily reconciled to T a r a s i o s and his successor

Nikephoros. In his letters written prior to 8 1 5 , a s mentioned earlier,

4 1
Ibid., p. 8 - 9, s e e note no. 16: - C e s higoumenes, les dix premiers a acclamer la synodique
papale, sont: 1). S a b a s ton Stoudion, 2)Gregoire tou Syracusa c'est a dire tov Orimiasdou 3) J e a n
ton P a g o u r i a o u 4) Eustathe tov Maximianou 5) Symeon tov Chenolakon 6) Georges ths Pygis 7)
Symeon ton Abramitwn 8) Joseph tou Herakleilon 9) Platon Sakkudion, 10)Gregoire tou
Sykianthou...
4 2
Henry, "Initial Eastern A s s e s s m e n t s of the Seventh Oecumenical Council", pp. 91 - 92.

225
Theodore questioned s o m e of the rulings of and even the valid nature of

N i c a e a II, a s an E c u m e n i c a l Council calling it a local s y n o d .

...ctAV o u 5 e auTi^v T ^ V a u v o S o v oiKOuji£viKr]v,

a A A ' tig T O T T I K T I V . . . 4 3

E v e n though Theodore w a s only in his twenties at the time of the council in

4 4
787, perhaps, he recollects the events in his c o r r e s p o n d e n c e at this time,

through a vision influenced by the Moechian Controversy. With the

outbreak of the s e c o n d p h a s e of iconoclasm in 8 1 5 , Theodore and

Nikephoros c a m e together to commonly fight the new peril. Nikephoros and

Theodore began their partnership a s they confronted L e o V at the palace

4 5
on C h r i s t m a s day 814. T h e Vita Nicetae gives a detailed account of the

encounter. The excellent translation of Professor Alexander will be

employed to trace the interaction between Patriarch, T h e o d o r e and the

Emperor.

...Theodore, the z e a l o u s (Qep\i6q) t e a c h e r of the

C h u r c h , abbot of Studios a n s w e r e d : 'Do not undo

the status of the C h u r c h , for the Apostle s p o k e

thus: And he gave some apostles and some

prophets, and s o m e evangelists, and s o m e pastors

and t e a c h e r s , for the perfecting of the saints" ( E p h .

4, 11), but he did not s p e a k of E m p e r o r s . T o you,

Fatouros (ed.) Theodori Studitae Epistulae in two vols, p. 110 lines 63 64 of Epistula 38 ad
'Apoeivu) T£KV(I). This letter is written circa 809 (see p. 181) some twenty years after Nicaea II,
but Theodore refers to it a s a local or regional council.
4 4
C r o s s and Livingstone (eds.) The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, p. 1358.
4 5
Theosterictos, Vita S. Nicetae the Mediciensis, AA. SS. Aprilis, cols xviii-xxvii.

226
 Emperor, h a s been entrusted the political s y s t e m

and the army. T a k e c a r e of them and leave the

C h u r c h to its s h e p h e r d s and t e a c h e r s according to

the Apostle. If you do not agree to this - even if an

angel from H e a v e n should give us a m e s s a g e

about a deviation from our faith we shall not listen

4 6
to him, and certainly not to you.

About three months after this melee, the Patriarch w a s forced to resign

4 7
from office and Theodore w a s exiled.

What c a n be noted in the above p a s s a g e is T h e o d o r e ' s concept of the

functional ministries within the C h u r c h . T h e o d o r e ' s other letters revealed

his sentiments concerning C h u r c h authority. His concept of the Pentarchy

and its unique place in the C h u r c h governance is very apparent in his

correspondence. Reflecting the traditional E a s t e r n C h u r c h view, T h e o d o r e

consistently r e c o g n i s e s R o m e ' s position among the ancient and Apostolic

Churches. In a letter to E m p e r o r Michael II, Theodore d e s c r i b e s the

4 8
papacy. Theodore w a s neither a rebel nor a papist by using this

language. He w a s appealing to the ancient prerogatives of R o m e and

reflecting the indisputably recognised position of the Pope. Fr. J o h n

Meyendorff explains this position in this way:

Alexander, Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople-Ecclesiastical Policy and Image Worship in

the Byzantine Empire, p p . 131 - 132. Alexander states the original source Vita Nicetae is difficult
to obtain. This is almost a direct quote from St. John of Damascus. S e e St. John of Damascus, On
Images, Three Apologies Against Those Who Attack the Divine Images, p p . 59 - 60.
4 7
Hussey, The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire, p p . 57 - 59.
4 8
Fatouros (ed.) Theodori Studitae Epistulae in two vols, Book II, Epistle ad Michael II no. 429, p .
601, s e e Mt. 16, 17 - 19: K o p u ^ o t t O T d T i i T(3v ^ K K A T j a i u i v T O O 0 E O O , ife Uijpoq TTptDTdOpovog,
i r p o i ; d v 6 K u p i d c , <|>Tiaiv a u e l n^Tpog, K a i tm T a d - r i ] Tf] T T E T p g oiicoSojitiau) u o u T I I V
^KKArimav Kai TTUACU §8OU OU Kanaxuaouaiv auTfji;.

227
 T h e E a s t e r n C h u r c h e s had a l w a y s recognised the

particular authority of Rome in ecclesiastical

affairs, a n d at Chalcedon [451 A.D.] had

emphatically acclaimed Pope L e o [I the Great] a s a

4 9
s u c c e s s o r to Peter, a fact which did not prevent

them from condemning the monothelite Pope

Honorius at the Sixth E c u m e n i c a l Council in 6 8 1 .

E v e n in the ninth century they did not realize that

their previous acclamations were being interpreted

in R o m e a s formal definitions of the R o m a n right to

50
a primacy of power (primatus potestatis).

W h e n writing to P o p e L e o III a n d Pope P a s c h a l , Theodore u s e s t h e s e

5 1
words, "chief or S u p r e m e - h e a d , the chief of all the heads." T o Pope

P a s c h a l I, T h e o d o r e wrote,

Listen, apostolic h e a d , G o d - a d v a n c e d s h e p h e r d of

Christ's lambs (sheep), k e e p e r of the keys of the

Heavenly Kingdom, rock of faith, you who are the

foundation of catholic church. Y o u are the m a n a g e r

5 2
and k e e p e r of order of the throne of P e t e r .

Percival (ed.) A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church
The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church, vol. 14 p. 259: "Peter has spoken thus
through Leo." Also s e e bottom of the same page and p. 260; also refer to 28 Canon of Chalcedon.
5 0
Meyendorff, J . (ed.) (1992) The Primacy of Peter - Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early
Church (St. Vladimir's Seminary P r e s s ) , Crestwood NY, in "St. Peter in Byzantine Theology" by
Meyendorff, J . , p. 68.
5 1
Fatouros (ed.) Theodori Studitae Epistulae in two vols, Epistles ad Leo III, Letters 33 and 34:
" K O p U < t > C t l O T d T m , TU)\> 6A(l)V KE<{>aA(i)V KE(()aAlj, TI1V l E p t o T O T T l V aou Kopu<|>Tiv."

5 2
Ibid., Epistle ad Paschal I, Pope of Rome, no. 271, p. 399 ff: " " A K O U E , dnooroAiKrj xapa,
GEOTipdpAijTE T T O i u r i v T(3v XpiOToO npofkrrwv, K A E I 8 O 0 X E Tfj<; odpavuiv BaaiAsfai;, Ti^Tpa T f j i ;
T T i ' a T E u g , tty' i\ i$Ko5d|itiTai ^ KaGoAriK^ ' E K K X I ) ^ ' n^TpoQ yap a u , T O V FlETpou 0pdvov K o a j i u i v
0

Kai 5IE'ITU)V..."

228
Notwithstanding that the concept of the C h u r c h ' s ecclesiology in relation to

R o m e is clear and correct, Theodore also p r e s e n t s the E a s t e r n C h u r c h ' s

perspective towards the other apostolic s e e s . In letters sent to the Pope of

Alexandria, the Patriarch of J e r u s a l e m and his own Patriarch Nikephoros,

the abbot of the Studites u s e d many of the s a m e words to describe their

ministries and authority within the C h u r c h . T h i s punctuates the reality that,

unlike the W e s t , the E a s t w a s comprised of a number of C h u r c h e s , which

5 3
had Apostolic foundations. Theodore set forth this understanding of the

episcopal dignity inherent in e a c h of the E a s t e r n patriarchates. Theodore

writes to J e r u s a l e m thusly:

your most b l e s s e d apostolic head-ship...for with

you, b l e s s e d one, r e s i d e s head-ship, for you are

the first of the Patriarchate [historically, J e r u s a l e m

was the first established Church under the

54
L e a d e r s h i p of St. J a m e s , the Lord's B r o t h e r ] .

T h e Studite leader writes to the Patriarch of Alexandria, who is also

traditionally given the title P o p e . Not only d o e s he allude to the Alexandrian

5 5
C h u r c h ' s apostolic foundations, but also recapitulates the primary charge

against the iconoclastic council. T h i s ecclesially b a s e d polemic s h o w s

5 3
Meyendorff (ed.) The Primacy of Peter - Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church, in
"Peter's Primacy in the New Testament and the Early Tradition" by Kesich, V., pp. 59 ff. Note
discussion on rank and status of Jerusalem and Antioch, a Church that also could legitimately claim
Sts. Peter and Paul a s their Apostolic founders.
5 4
Fatouros (ed.) Theodori Studitae Epistulae in two vols, Epistle ad Patriarch of Jerusalem, no.
u
276, pp. 409 ff: ..rf\q d n o a T i A i K f j s (iji(3v u a K a p i u n d - r r i i ; Kopo<J>fJg.. Tfjq afji; jiaKapiOTTiTog
u n r i p x e i Kopu<|>ri. a u n p a i T o g n a T p i a p x i B v , . . " Refer to C r o s s and Livingstone (eds.) The Oxford
Dictionary of the Christian Church, p. 722.
5 5
Tradition assigns the foundation of the Alexandrian Church to St. Mark the Evangelist. S e e
Eusebius, (c. 4th Century) The History of the Church from Christ to Constantine, Dorset Classic
Series, 1965, trans. G . A. Williamson (Dorset P r e s s - 1984), New York, pp. 88 - 89.

229
Theodore's assertion against the iconoclasts is very reflective of the

arguments that the other iconophiles h a v e previously u s e d . T h e following

quote illustrate both points:

Y o u r saintly chief [head-ship] suffers along with the

all the other members of the C h u r c h . How c r a s s

they [the iconoclasts] anathematise our holy

Fathers, they proclaim the disrespectors. The

immature are nourished by impious teachings from

5 6
the tomes of t h e s e t e a c h e r s .

A s c a n be s e e n , T h e o d o r e not only held a consistent view of the authority

of the ancient apostolic s e e s , but also had a clear concept of what were the

foundational violations of the iconoclasts. In a letter to the Emperor

Michael II, Theodore s t r e s s e s the point that the C h u r c h of Constantinople

must be reunited with the head of the C h u r c h of G o d , in other words the

5 7
C h u r c h of R o m e and the other three Patriarchates. T h i s conviction is

deeply rooted in the patristic tradition that the C h u r c h must be one; it must

preach and proclaim one doctrine and one truth. W e s e e in the treatise

Adversus Haereses, by St. Irenaeus, this attribute of the C h u r c h described

in its fullness.

Fatouros (ed.) Theodori Studitae Epistulae in two vols, Epistle ad Pope of Alexandria no.275,
p. 407 lines 55 - 5 8 : "..Ttj G E I O T C I T I ] O O U KOpu<t>fj t5g ounTraoxouorj T O I Q T O O 6"AOU ao)(icrroQ Tfjq
£ia<Aiia(aq J I E A E O I V . . Ti TdAAa; dvaGcaTf^ovrai ol dyioi i^n<3v vaiepzq, dvaiaipurrovTai ol
^OEPTIKOTEQ T<X v r j m a £v TOTQ if\q
-
doepeiai;, Sdyjiaoiv dvcrrp£'<t>ovTai T<? S O B E V T I TO(I^> T O I I ;
SiSaoxdAoK;.."
5 7
Ibid., Epistle ad Michael, Emperor and King, no. 418, p. 586: "..EvwGfjvai •f\\i&<; Tfj Kopucfiq TWV
'Pwjiri.Kal S i ' atiTfjc; TOTQ Tpiai Trcnpiap'xan;.."
E K K A I I O I U V TOO GEOU

230
 T h e C h u r c h , although scattered over the whole

world even to its extremities, received from the

Apostles and their d i s c i p l e s . . . T h i s preaching and

this faith the C h u r c h although scattered over the

whole world, diligently o b s e r v e s , a s if it occupied

one h o u s e , and believes a s if it had but one mind,

and p r e a c h e s and t e a c h e s a s if it had one mouth.

And although there are many dialects in the world,

the meaning of the tradition is one and the s a m e .

For the s a m e faith is held and handed down by

Churches established in the Germanies, the

S p a i n s , among the Celtic tribes, in the E a s t , in

5 8
Libya, and in the central portions of the world.

Later in the s a m e work, Irenaeus continues to delineate his a w a r e n e s s of

the most common feature that results in harmony and order within the

C h u r c h universal.

Anyone who w i s h e s to discern the truth may s e e in

every church in the whole world the Apostolic

tradition clear and manifest. W e c a n enumerate

those who were appointed as bishops in the

c h u r c h e s by the Apostles and their s u c c e s s o r s to

our own day... For they (the Apostles) w i s h e d

them to be without blame and reproach to them

that they handed over their own position of

59
authority.

5 8
Quasten, J . (1986) Patrology - in IV Volumes (Christian C l a s s i c s Inc.), Westminster MD, pp.
300 - 301, in Adversus Haereses I, 10, 1 - 2.
5 9
Ibid., p. 301, in Adversus Haereses 3, 3, 1.

231
From the earliest h e r e s i e s , there w a s an a c c e p t a n c e of the concept that the

unity of the faith w a s determined only through dogma promulgated by the

entirety of the C h u r c h e s acting in concord. T h i s mutuality w a s fundamental

to the definition of what constituted the "unblemished apostolic tradition."

E a c h of the E c u m e n i c a l Councils w a s a c o n c l a v e , at which all Apostolic

S e e s had s e n t s o m e representation. Writing his letters in the ninth century,

Theodore w a s echoing exactly the teaching that Irenaeus had articulated in

his century. I r e n a e u s had written in r e s p o n s e to the danger of G n o s t i c i s m ;

Theodore struggled in r e s p o n s e to iconoclasm. In his very straightforward

message to Michael, Theodore clearly states that the Church of

Constantinople had left the body of the E c u m e n i c a l C h u r c h by following

6 0
iconoclastic teachings. In Theodore's eyes, this situation was

unacceptable and n e e d e d redress. Although Theodore had earlier voiced

his reservations relative to the ecumenical status of the Council at N i c a e a ,

he did ultimately recognise its authority and status. T h e Studite leader w a s

also reconciled to Patriarch Nikephoros. T h i s w a s evident in s e v e r a l

personal c o r r e s p o n d e n c e s from Theodore to the exiled Patriarch. In letter

286, T h e o d o r e ' s praise for Nikephoros is exuberant. He u s e s t h e s e words

to greet Nikephoros,

Hail, O, true victor over impiety...Hail, O, great s u n

6 1
of Orthodoxy...Hail O, C h a m p i o n of truth...

Fatouros (ed.) Theodori Studitae Epistulae in two vols, Epistle ad Michael, Emperor no. 275,
lines 57 - 58: " . . O I ) K £ O T I KaTa^euKTijpiov awjiaToq tv oiKouii^voig.."
6 1
Ibid., Epistle ad Nikephoros, the blessed Patriarch, no. 286: "...xaTpe dAr|G<3Q VIKTITTIPIOV

daep(ag..xatpe 6 (i^yag ifAiog Tffc (5pOo5o4(aq..xaTpE i!)vip\iat,e JT\Q dAi]0E(aq.."

232
Theodore continues in Kajx\xt]oiq, (406) to inculcate his monks a s to the

state of the C h u r c h of G o d . He d e c l a r e s that the P o p e of R o m e t e a c h e s , a s

if he w a s a voice from heaven itself. He d e s c r i b e s the iconoclasts a s Christ

deniers who not only reject Christ, but also the Theotokos and all the saints.

In his l e s s o n , T h e o d o r e continues to a c c u s e t h e s e heretics of not harkening

to the words of the evangelists, the apostles, the prophets and the F a t h e r s .

A s c a n be demonstrated by this enumeration, in T h e o d o r e ' s mind there is a

complete repudiation of the Tradition of the C h u r c h by the iconoclasts. He

continues his a c c u s a t i o n s by charging that t h e s e men had c a s t a w a y the

five-crowned [i.e. the pentarchy] body of the C h u r c h . T h e abbot is quite

specific in citing Nikephoros a s the rightful "fifth" h e a d due to the fact he

w a s still living; this implies that Theodore recognised Nikephoros a s the

only legitimate Patriarch of Constantinople. He c l o s e s this thought by

attacking the h e r e s i a r c h s , saying that they s e i z e d the C h u r c h by the throat,

6 2
cursed Christ and trodden on the holy.

What h a s this examination of Theodore's e c c l e s i a l c o n s c i o u s n e s s yielded?

For the most part, it is evident that two key constructs are revealed in his

understanding of the nature of the C h u r c h . Primary to T h e o d o r e ' s thinking

was the fact that the correct faith depended on the unanimity and

c o n s e n s u s between all the Apostolically founded c h u r c h e s . T h i s unity w a s

Ibid., Catechism no. 4 0 6 , p. 5 6 3 ; " . . . I ^ K E V ai)-rfj <t>a>vi\ U T T O J I V T I O T I K I I d>q d n ' oOpavou, E K T O O

KopuijiaioTdTou, IK T O O 'PwjialKoO 0pdvou, T ( vivpaxaq; '[3o<3aa , X p i O T d v lfpiivtioai, X p i a T o u
TTIV Eitcdva dQEToOoa, T % Q E O K S K O U , T<3V n d v T u v d y f w v . d v o i ^ o v Euijucoov oOq, i v w - r i a a i
Adyouq EdayyEAiicod^, d n o a T o X i K o u q , TTpo<t>T|TiKoug, TtctTpiKoug K a i ou TrpoaTiKcrro, O U K ^5^aTO,
d M d 5 i a p p i j £ a a a E O U T I ^ V T O O TT£VTaKOpu<)>ou ai&\ianoQ Tflg ^KKAqofaQ (£TTEI5II £ T I Kai
NiKTi^dpoi; 6 l e p o g ) TpaxrjXiq K a r a 0 E O O u a v T O K p a T o p a ^ , ivi>pp(^ooaa X p i a T O v , n a T o O o a Td
dyia."

233
a manifestation of the ancient Tradition handed down from the first d a y s of

the C h u r c h . W e read in the book of Acts in the account of the Council of

J e r u s a l e m "It s e e m e d good to the apostles, the elders, with the whole

6 3
C h u r c h . . . F o r it s e e m e d good to the Holy Spirit and to us..." Commenting

on this passage's impact, Rev. Dr. John Chryssavgis makes this

observation in his book The Way of the Fathers:

It w a s in recognition of t h e s e people, [the Holy

Fathers] and of what they stood for, that the

opening phrase of the Great (or Ecumenical)

Councils was established: 'Following the holy

Fathers,...it s e e m e d good to the Holy Spirit and to

6 4
us'.

B e s i d e s the very s e r i o u s doctrinal condemnation of iconoclasm, T h e o d o r e ' s

grievance also reflected his distress with the unilateral and singular

acceptance of the teaching by the Church of Constantinople.

Constantinople's isolation from the rest of the catholic C h u r c h violated the

ancient embodiment of unity. St. Vincent of Lerins in the fifth century had

articulated the classically a c c e p t e d standard:

In ipse item catholica ecclesia magnopere curadum

est, ut id teneamus, quod ubique, quod semper,

65
quod ab omnibus creditum est.

6 3
Acts 15, 2 2 - 2 8 .
6 4
Chryssavgis, J . (1998) The Way of the Fathers • Exploring the Patristic Mind, Analecta
Vlatadon (Patriarchal Institute for Patristic Studies), Thessaloniki, p. 131.
6 5
Migne, J . - P. (ed.) (1844 - 1855) Patrologiae Cursus Completes: Series Latina, Paris.,
Commontoria 2,1: " In the Catholic Church herself every care must be taken that we may hold fast
to that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all."

234
Nikephoros, Patriarch of Constantinople provided a well-documented record

of his theological objections to the teachings of the iconoclasts a s well a s

his opinion of their corruption and a b u s e of the Tradition of the C h u r c h .

Nikephoros' active display of resistance began when he objected to the re-

institution of iconoclasm by L e o the Armenian. He begins his recriminations

of the iconoclastic teachings and tactics by plainly citing the rift that they

had c a u s e d within the Body of the C h u r c h . He states that none of the

Apostolic s e e s could a c c e p t this false dogma:

But you [Leo] have decided to w a g e war on us [the

C h u r c h ] . . . N o n e t h e l e s s , you have decided to raise

up against <orthodox doctrine> some murky

teaching from pernicious men. What R o m e is it,

first called the s e a t of the apostles, that a c c o r d s

with you in rejecting the revered image of Christ?

Rather, R o m e joins us in labouring and rejoicing to

honour that <image>. What Alexandria is it,

venerable precinct of the evangelist Mark, that e v e r

joined <you> in refusing to set up the bodily and

material l i k e n e s s of the Mother of G o d ? Rather,

Alexandria assists and agrees with us in this

<point>. What Antioch is it, far-famed s e a t of

Peter, the chief <of the apostles>, that c o n c u r s

<with you> in insulting the representation of the

235
 saints? Rather, Antioch s h a r e s with us the long

tradition of honouring these <images>. What

J e r u s a l e m is it, renowned home of < J a m e s > , the

brother of the Lord, that c o n s p i r e s <with you> in

destroying the traditions <handed down> from the

6 6
<church> fathers?

In the s a m e excerpt, Nikephoros outlines the iconoclast's b r e a c h with the

Tradition. He s u m m a r i s e d the record that L e o wished to e s p o u s e a

doctrine which had not been accepted by any E c u m e n i c a l Council.

Nikephoros w a s well defined in his denunciation of L e o ' s intent to introduce

6 7
"revolutionary teachings against the established tradition". Nikephoros'

confrontation with L e o continues and the Patriarch m a k e s the following

appeal to Tradition:

What person p o s s e s s e d of reason and wisdom will

follow you in <your path> of universal

destruction?...the making of holy icons is revered;

in reality <this practice> is clearly implied not by

s o m e <recent> notion from yesterday but by the

coming of Christ among men. T h u s , we h a v e been

taught that the prophets, apostles and t e a c h e r s

6 8
built on this foundation < of Christ>.

Ignatios the Deacon, The Life of Patriarch Nicephoros I of Constantinople in Byzantine

Defenders of Images - Eight Saints' Lives in English translation, pp. 81 - 82; cited in Migne (ed.)
Patrologiae cursus completes: Series graeca., vol. C , cols. 86 ff.
6 7
Ignatios the Deacon, The Life of Patriarch Nicephoros I of Constantinople in Byzantine
Defenders of Images - Eight Saints' Lives in English translation, p. 82.
6 8
Ibid., p. 103, alludes to Eph, 2, 20.

236

i
A s the crisis d e e p e n e d between Emperor and Patriarch, the iconoclastic

cabal met in 815 at what h a s c o m e to be known a s the Council of St.

6 9
Sophia. Nikephoros w a s confronted at the patriarchal palace by a

delegation from that council demanding that he "give account of the

c h a r g e s against him." Nikephoros a n s w e r e d them with this appeal to the

authority of his p e e r s , the fellow Patriarchs, and to Holy Tradition:

Who is it that hurls letters of accusation at us a n d

entertains charges against us? Over which

patriarchal s e e d o e s he claim to p r e s i d e ? What

pastoral authority d o e s he hold that he subjects u s

to canonical restraints? If the helmsman who

reverently s t e e r s the older R o m e s u m m o n s u s , I

shall c o m e . If the holy preacher of Alexandria

brings a charge against u s , I shall attend upon him

without complaint. If the holy shepherd of Antioch

drags us to a court of judgement, I shall not be

absent. If he who administers J e r u s a l e m has

s u m m o n e d us to stand to account, I shall not fail to

do it...You will not take hold of those who have

fixed their mind upon the rock of the orthodox

confession<faith>, nor will you c a s t down those

who set t h e m s e l v e s upon the heights of definitions

m a d e by the <ecumenical> councils. However the

heavy s e a s of heresy will break upon you without

w a s h i n g over the universal C h u r c h .

Alexander, "The Iconoclastic Council of St. Sophia (815) and its Definition (Horos)"

237
 ...what argument will deliver you from the

punishment <specified by > the c a n o n s , s i n c e you

wish to build a heretical doctrine of wood , of hay

and of stubble upon the foundation of gold and

silver adorned with precious stones, I mean <by

"precious stones">, the teachings of the apostles

7 0
and of the <Church> fathers?

Shortly after this encounter, Nikephoros w a s forced to resign and w a s

exiled. It is during the s u b s e q u e n t y e a r s , that the literary output of the

Patriarch proliferated against the heretical dogma of the iconoclasts. The

ecclesiology and theology that Nikephoros expounded before and during

his exile must h a v e influenced Methodios. T h i s c a n be demonstrated by

reviewing s o m e additional excerpts from among the writings of Nikephoros.

7 1
The Twelve Chapters is a short work "whose purpose is to outline the

r e a s o n s for which, the leaders of the iconoclastic h e r e s y are outside the

C h u r c h . T h e r e is no discussion; it is simply a statement of facts. T h e death

7 2
of L e o V is mentioned, and therefore this work is after 25 D e c e m b e r 820.

7 3
The Refutatio et Eversio [ "EAeyxog Kcci 'AvaTponrf ] is a treatise

c o m p o s e d of two parts. T h e first is a refutation of the Definition [Horos] of

the iconoclastic council of 815 [St. Sophia]; the s e c o n d part is a detailed

7 4
criticism of the patristic dossier produced by this "council." T h e defence

Ignatios the Deacon, The Life of Patriarch Nicephoros I of Constantinople in Byzantine

Defenders of Images - Eight Saints' Lives in English translation, pp. 1 1 0 - 1 1 1 , italics ref. Cor.3, 12.
7 1
Papadopoulos-Kerameus, A. (ed.) (1891) Twelve Chapters of Nikephoros of Constantinople.
7 2
O'Connell, The Ecclesiology of St. Nicephorus I (758-828) Patriarch of Constantinople -
Pentarchy and Primacy, p. 62.
7 3
Featherstone, "The Refutation of the Council of 815 by Nicephorus."
7 4
O'Connell, The Ecclesiology of St. Nicephorus I (758-828) Patriarch of Constantinople -
Pentarchy and Primacy, p. 65.

238
presented in this latter work h a s been s u r v e y e d in earlier c h a p t e r s of this

paper therefore, w e will concentrate for the most part on the former work at

this time.

T h e Twelve Chapters presented in concise and direct language the c h a s m

created between the C h u r c h a n d the iconoclastic teachings. From the

opening s e n t e n c e , Nikephoros m a k e s the charge that the heretics had

abandoned the Tradition, which had been kept a n d handed down in the

apostolic and catholic C h u r c h . He confirmed that the heritage w a s

transmitted and guarded "from the beginning" by all C h r i s t i a n s , but the

iconoclasts not only did not honour the Tradition; they in fact renounced

t h e s e teachings. T h e Patriarch continued to rebuke his opponents saying

that the teachings of the holy F a t h e r s followed the apostolic admonition of

St Paul:

So then, brethren, stand firm a n d hold the

traditions, which you were taught by u s , either by

7 5
word of mouth or by letter.

After this opening salvo of chapter one, Nikephoros quotes from S t . J o h n

Chysostomos, S t . Basil the Great and a s a bid to calumniate the

iconoclastic arguments, he even quoted Epiphanios, a s a s o u r c e providing

recourse to the F a t h e r s , " a s the C h u r c h prescribes this, the Tradition is

received from the F a t h e r s c m d v a y x a i w g r\ EKKAncria TOOTO ^TTITEAEI,

7 5
Papadopoulos-Kerameus (ed.) Twelve Chapters of Nikephoros of Constantinople, p. 454, lines
10 — 13, 17 — 19. Also s e e 2 T h . 2, 15: " O T I TI^V irapdSooiv , r[v nctpe'AaPEv E ! ; dpxfjg Kai
<5V(I)9EV dyia TOO 0EOO KOGOAIKII Kai dnoaToAiKii EKKATIOIO Kai irdvTEq.. 'KPOTETTE Tag
Trapa5<5aEiq dg napEAdpETE iyypdtywq K a i &ypdtyb)q'."

239
TTccpdSocuv Aaf3o0acc TTapd TTCCTEPWV..." T h e next few chapters are

devoted to a recitation and review of the i s s u e s and the decretals of the

E c u m e n i c a l C o u n c i l s . In the sixth chapter, the Patriarch c o m m u n i c a t e s the

specific significance of N i c a e a II in relation to the Tradition of the C h u r c h .

Nikephoros pointed out these attributes of that council:

It met the criteria for ecumenicity, in that all the

ancient s e e s were represented by delegates or by

letters of authorization, t h e s e delegates remained

7 7
until the conclusion of the council. T h e council

from its outset upheld the apostolic and patristic

d o g m a s and proclaimed them. T h e fathers of the

synod at all times also championed the teachings

relative to the incarnational economy of our Lord

and Saviour J e s u s Christ by condemning those

lawbreakers who set aside and cursed those

7 8
dogmas.

These carefully c h o s e n precepts denounced, by implication, both the

iconoclastic councils of Hiereia - B l a c h e r n a e and the Council of St. S o p h i a .

T h e Patriarch left no doubt a s to the invalid nature of t h e s e c o n c l a v e s . In

next few chapters, he recounts the mistreatment inflicted on the temples,

7 9
images and true believing Christians by the heretics. C h a p t e r twelve is

7 6
Ibid., p. 4 5 5 , lines 2 1 - 2 2 .
7 7
Ibid., p. 4 5 7 lines 1 7 - 2 0 ; "...auv£8p£udvT0>v Kai T<3V A o i n u v duoaToAiK<3v dpxiEpomKuv
0pdvu)v 5id T E T U V auvo5iK(Dv y p a w i a T E w v K a i o i K E f w v TonoTr|pTiTi3v, oiq ^ x p t j a a v T o ad-roi
dpxiEpEt? npdg T O ETTiTEAEoaBfivai Tr|v a d v o S o v "
7 8
Ibid., p. 4 5 7 , lines 2 4 - 2 8 : " A U T T I 5 E J\ d y ( a auvo8o<; T T \ V \itv tt, dpxfji; K p a - r r j a a a a v tv
£KKXr|a(q a u v r i 0 £ i a v dnocrroAiK<3<; Kai naTpiKtSc; 8 o y i i a T { a a a a i K u p u a e , TOOQ hi d0£TrjaavTa<; Kai
E v u p p f a a T a g T I ^ V 0 E ( O V T O O awTfjpo? i^|i(3v X p i a T o O oiKovojiiav d v E 0 E ( i a T i a £ v . . . "
7 9
Ibid., s e e chapters 7 & 8 , p. 4 5 8 .

240
perhaps the most significant of the monograph. Within this portion of the

writing, Nikephoros e x p r e s s e s two dramatic pronouncements involving the

iconoclasts. T h e Patriarch breaks with the more lenient approach taken by

T a r a s i o s at N i c a e a II, in respect to the iconoclasts' re-integration into the

Church. He propounded that t h e s e heretics were essentially proponents of

Manichaeism, a godless darkened belief, "...Mctvixcuwv CCGEOV xai

8 0
ErjKOTianevTiv 0prjaK£iav..." Earlier, the Patriarch had urged the

Emperor Michael I to inflict the death penalty on Manichaeans and

Paulicians and the Athingani.

Moved by an e x c e s s of divine z e a l , the most pious

emperor, [Michael I] at the instigation of the most

holy patriarch Nikephoros and other pious p e r s o n s ,

d e c r e e d the death penalty against the M a n i c h e e s

(that is the Paulicians of today) and the Athinganoi

who live in Phrygia a n d L y k a o n i a , but w a s turned

back from this course by certain perverse

counsellors who u s e d the pretext of repentance,

although those who h a v e fallen into that error are

incapable of repenting. T h e counsellors argued in

their ignorance that priests ought not to c o n d e m n

8 1
the impious to d e a t h . . . .

The "perverse counsellors" referred to in the above excerpt included

Theodore the Studite who openly o p p o s e d this policy. T h e o p h a n e s the

C o n f e s s o r had no great affection for the Studite leader. In a letter to

8 Q
Ibid., p. 459, 24 - 26.
8 1
Theophanes the Confessor, The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor, p. 678, cited in Hamilton
and Hamilton, Christian Dualist Heresies in the Byzantine World, p. 61.

241
Theophilos of E p h e s u s , Theodore voiced his opinion concerning this i s s u e

in this manner.

I have in my hands the letter which your s a c r e d

h i g h n e s s sent to our brother A t h a n a s i o s , a n d , most

worshipful of men, when I read it I w a s very

grieved. Firstly, because disputes and

d i s a g r e e m e n t s have arisen among those of u s who

uphold the word of truth against the h e r e s y of the

Iconomachi which now a s s a i l s it, and s e c o n d l y

b e c a u s e I am obliged in all humility to adopt the

opposing position. Y o u r g r e a t n e s s will forgive m e ,

for the argument is about truth, than which nothing

is more important or more to be revered. What

then is the content of the letter which disturbs m e ?

It s a y s , 'We have not decided whether to kill the

M a n i c h a e a n s or not to kill them. But if we were to

allow it, we would make a very right decision.'

What are you saying, most reverend? In the

gospels the Lord forbade this, saying, 'No, lest

when you collect the tares you root up the wheat

with them. Let them both grow together till

82
harvest.'

Fatouros (ed.) Theodori Studitae Epistulae in two vols., Epitulae ad Theophilos of Ephesus no.
455, pp. 644 - 647: " "EAapov £iri xEipat; T O ypamaaTETov, oTrtp diTEaTEiAEv iepa crou Kopu<|>?i
'AGavaaCty T<V fwiErlpiif dA5£A(|><v Kai dvayvoOg £Aunrj6r|v, I E P W T G T E ' (iou naTep, AUTTTJV iKav^v,
TTpwrov \itv O T I £v l^Tv auToTg, JOIQ dpGoTojioOat T O V Adyov Tfjg dAr|9E(a<; K O T O T I ^ V V O V
AuTTioaav a i p E a i v T U V £(Kovo(idxwv, £p£ax£A(ai yiyvovTai Kai ox(a\icna inKjiuovTai., ftiEiTa O T I
dvayKd^onai 6 iAdxioTog dvTi0£TiK(Dc, TI^V 6idAe^iv troiifaaaBai. 'AAAd auyyivwaKETw i"|
(lEyaAEidTTig oou- TiEpi ydp dAtiOEiag & Adyoq, i\q O U S E V npoTijioTEpov O O S E V aiSeaTiKUTEpdv.

T ( 5E" T O Em|)£pdu£vov E V ro\q ypdwiaai, tiepi oO r| Adnrj; i^|i£Tq, <()r|a(v, O I S T E K T ^ V E O G O I T O O I ;

Mavixaioui; O A T E \ir\ K T E V E O G O I auvEPouAEdaajiEV £t 5i Kai £TT£Tp^i()a|i£v, T<DV KaAAfcrrwv T O
0 JlEV
lityioTov £ l ' x l noifjaai. T ( tyf\q, <3 8EdTi(inT£; 6 Kupioc; drniydpEUOEv E V TOT<; £uayy£A(oi<;
T O O T O EiiTwv otf, niirroTE ouAA^yovTEg Td d ^ d v i a EKpiijwariTE d|ia O O T O T Q T O V O T T O V d())ET£
1 T
auvau^dvEoGE ji^xP ° 0 GEpia|iou."

242
To draw any comparison between the lapsed iconoclasts and the

M a n i c h a e a n s indicates that after the re-introduction of the s e c o n d p h a s e of

the heresy Nikephoros w a s prepared to take drastic m e a s u r e s against

them. Nikephoros' decisive and most powerful remodelling of his attitudes

about the l a p s e d iconoclasts must have influenced and altered the thinking

of his iconodulic s u c c e s s o r , Patriarch Methodios. Nikephoros unequivocally

stated that t h e s e dissident non-believers had never truly repented their

ignorant b l a s p h e m i e s . A s a result, they returned to their evil a n d impious

teachings, thereby they created a s c h i s m in Christ's C h u r c h . A s we know,

this violated the c a n o n s of N i c a e a II. Nikephoros' solution involved a very

stringent application of the penalty of excommunication. He pronounced

that t h e s e heretics remained outside of communion u n l e s s they appeal to

the judgement of R o m e , the first of the Apostolic s e e s . No doubt, this

caveat w a s placed to e m p h a s i s e the pre-eminence of R o m e and to avoid a

ruling from an iconoclastic patriarch in Constantinople absolving t h e s e

lapsed heretics and allowing them to retain or regain their ecclesiastical

dignity by stealth. Nikephoros unquestionably proclaimed that he would not

accept t h e s e p e r s o n s to return to communion in the C h u r c h , and finally he

spoke of the ultimate penalty that they would pay, the condemnation to

8 3
eternal fire and damnation. With the recurrence of iconoclasm under L e o

Papadopoulos-Kerameus (ed.) Twelve Chapters of Nikephoros of Constantinople, p. 460, lines

1-14: "Aid 6 T O U T O Q S E X ^ M E V O ? Koivwvdg E O T I Tfjq diruAEfag ad-rwv K a i T U V (lupi'wv
dva0EndtTwv £voxog. " O n 8E Tffc KaGoAtKfjg £KKAr)aia<; drtEpptiyyuEOi elai, aaefiwg u a p T u p o O a i
K a i £Tfia(|)pay(^ouai K a i Ta npo X P ° V 0 U
Tivdg EKiTE^O^vTa ypdnjiaTa n a p d T O O dyiwTdTou Kai
^aKapiWTaTOU dpxupiwQ 'Pu\ii\c,, T O U T E ' O T L T O O npui-rou K a i dnoaToAiKoO G p d v o i r E T I 8e K a i oi
T O U T O TOTTOTT)pTiTal K a i d i r o K p i o i d p i o i , (JQ OI) (ldvov oii KoivwvT^aavTEQ a d T o i g , dAAd \iT\bt elg
8i|>iv \ii\5t Etg Adyoug O O T I D V 6nuoo0v E A G E T V dvaaxduEvoi, K a i O I ) T O T O o u v E c m a G r j v a i OUTOTC;
T E A E O V TiaTpaiTr|oa(iEvoi. Aid T O O T O O O V ndvTa K a i i ( i £ t g T I ^ V K o i v w v f a v aiiT<5v diroaTp£())d|iE0a
K a i T O auvavaaTpE(|>E'a0ai auTotg T r a p a i T o u n t G a " i v a \IT\ lioauTwg T O I Q adToT<; K p t n a a i v

243
V and the return of large numbers of hierarchs who supported the doctrine,

8 4
most especially in and around Constantinople, the climate h a d c h a n g e d

from the more conciliatory d a y s of 787.

UTTOTT^aw(iEV Kai £E"VOI Kai dAAoTpioi T<3V dnocrroAIK(3V 8EIX6<3JIEV Kai — TO TTOVTUV papuTEpov -
TOO XpioroO Kai 0 E O O i^|ii3v PaaiA£(ag ^KTI^OUJIEV Kai T<$ atwvfty trupi KaTaKpi6<3(iEV."
8 4
Fatouros (ed) Theodori Studitae Epistulae in two vols, Epistola to Efthemiou of Sardis No. 1 1 2 .

244
 Synergy of Uapdboaiq and n a p a K c n - a e i i i a i

Patriarch Methodios c a m e to the throne of St. Andrew amidst this multi-

changing setting. His approach to the treatment of the l a p s e d iconoclasts

w a s affected by the swing of the pendulum concerning t h e s e heretical

clergy. T h e Holy Tradition of the C h u r c h , Trapd5oaic;, w a s foremost in his

mind a s he fought to c l e a n s e the C h u r c h . T h e evolution of the Patriarch's

reasoning and attitudes were influenced by the historical, political and

theological milieu of his a g e . In addition, he w a s conditioned by his

understanding of the responsibility of his office. In my opinion, the concept

of TTGpo(KC(Tcx0T]Kr| w a s a fundamental determinate that s h a p e d Methodios'

thinking a s he set forth shepherding the C h u r c h . What is this a s p e c t of

C h u r c h Tradition that could evoke s u c h a great authority over Methodios?

How did this understanding develop? What patristic grounding did this

teaching e n g e n d e r ?

n a p a K c r r a G i i K n is a principle established and a s s o c i a t e d with the office of

bishop from apostolic times. St. Paul wrote Timothy, his disciple and

travelling companion, instructions on ministry. By tradition, Timothy

8 5
b e c a m e the first bishop of E p h e s u s . napaKaTa0r)KTi c a n be defined, a s

the treasure of the C h u r c h ' s Tradition, the deposit of faith, which must be

preserved inviolate and transmitted to future generations without any stain

or spot. T h i s duty is and h a s a l w a y s b e e n an obligation of the bishop.

R e a d i n g I Timothy 6, 20, St. P a u l ' s exhortation to his young friend is this,

8 5
Eusebius, The History of the Church from Christ to Constantine, p. 109.

245
 8 6
"O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you." In II Timothy 1, 14

we read: Guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit

who dwells in us. "Tr)v KCEAIIV TTapa9f|Kr|v <|)u^a^ov 5id TTveupurrog dyiou

8 7
TOU £VOKOOVTO<; ev TI^TV." The sacred treasure is also the responsibility

of the ordained clergy. At his ordination, each ordained presbyter was and

is to this day entrusted with the Body of Christ, the Church. This charge is

dramatically and tangibly emphasised within the ordination service. The

candidate is directed by the ordaining bishop to approach the altar; the host

is placed in his crossed hands. The words recited at this moment by the

Bishop were and are:

Receive this treasure, guard it until the Second

Coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, at which time he
8 8
will ask an account of you for it.

This is now more than an earthly responsibility; it is one that transcends

time and the created order. The ordinate is then guided to stand behind the

altar table, holding the Body of Christ. Symbolically these ordination rituals

underlined the gravity of the priesthood and bound the ordained clergy to

the Tradition of the Church and its protection. The office of bishop had an

even graver onus. One of the primary callings of the bishop is the

May and Metzger (eds.) The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha, p. 1445.
8 7
Marshall, A. (ed.) (1970) The R.S.V. Interlinear Greek - English New Testament, (Zondervan),
Grand Rapids Ml, p. 836 May and Metzger (eds.) The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the
Apocrypha, p. 1447.
8 8
Goar (ed.) Euchologion Sive Rituale Greacorum, p. 243: " A d p e T I ^ V i r a p c t K a T a G r j i a w Taufu, K o t i
<)>iMa^ov a i ) T ( i i , EWC; T f j g n a p o u m a c ; T O O Kupfou l ^ j i u i v Ir|oo0 XpicrroG, STE n a p a u T o u ( I E A A E I C ;
dnETElaGai CtOTW. "

246
preservation of the "truth of Christ." Scripture defines this function in this

manner:

Do your best to present yourself to God as one

approved, a workman who has no need to be
ashamed, rightly handling [teaching] the word of

This biblical injunction was accented by the early canons of the Church and

by prayers in the liturgical texts of both St. John Chrysostomos' Liturgy and

St. Basil's Liturgy. The first of Eighty-Five Apostolic canons dealt with the

ordination to the office of bishop. "Let a bishop be ordained by two or three

9 0
bishops." This ordinance was upheld by Canon IV at Nicaea I, which

stated that even the ordination of a bishop must involve a number of senior

9 1
bishops. Canon XIII of the African Code (419) reaffirms the Apostolic -

9 2
Nicene orthodoxy. The purpose of these stipulations was to insure the

proper dogmatic qualifications of the candidate for ordination. The

acquiescence, to the elevation of the entrant, by multiple bishops would

help provide a method of testing his suitability and adherence to Holy

Tradition. The apostolic succession inherent in the office of bishop was

also safeguarded by these stringent procedures.

8 9
II Tim. 2, 15 Marshall (ed.) The R.S.V. Interlinear Greek - English New Testament, p. 838:
"oTiouSaoov at C I O T O V 6dici|iov T T a p a c r r f | a a i TW 0 E U S , £pydm\v d v e n a ( o x u v T o v , d p O o T o n o O v T a T O V
A d y o v Tfjg d^Qeiaq."
9 0
Percival (ed.) A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church
The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church, vol. 14 p . 594, [emphasis mine].
9 1
Ibid., vol. 14 p. 11.
9 2
Ibid., vol. 14, p. 448.

247
Liturgically, the prayers of the fourth century liturgies lent support to the

biblical instructions of St. Paul. Chrysostomos imparts in the prayers of

remembrance, immediately following the Anaphora, these words:

We beseech, you, O Lord, Remember, all Orthodox

9 3
Bishops who rightly define the word of your truth.

Although St Basil expressed the same duty and grace for the episcopate in

the exact same words in Goar's version of the Euchologion this is not borne

out in Brightman's text and may very well be a later insertion from the

9 4
Chrysostomos liturgy. Nonetheless, the phrase is clearly present in the

Chrysostomos liturgy, and St. Basil prays for remembrance and pacification

9 5
of the apostolic and catholic Church in all corners of the world.

Between the time of the instructions of St. Paul to Timothy and Methodios'

era, the function and accountability of the bishop became more defined and

developed. Previously, three questions were asked. A short examination

of the development of the role of the bishop historically, through the

patristic witness, will enable a better understanding of the power of this

postulate on Methodios' thinking. As was demonstrated, the bishop's

pivotal function was not the administration of Church affairs, but he was

theologically entrusted and imbued with the awesome trust to teach and

9 3
Goar (ed.) Euchologion Sive Rituale Greacorum, Liturgy of St. john Chysostomos, eighth
century usage, p. 63: " E T I napaKaAouu^voE, u v i ^ a G i i T i Kupie vdar\q E T r i a K o i r f j s , dp9o8d£ou, TWV
<Jp8oTO(iouvTu)v T O V Adyov Tf^q oflg dAriOefctQ.. " s o s e e Brightman, F. E . and Hammond, C . E.
(eds.) (1896) Liturgies Eastern and Western (Clarendon P r e s s ) , Oxford, p. 332.
9 4
Goar (ed.) Euchologion Sive Rituale Greacorum, p. 147.
9 5
Brightman and Hammond (eds.) Liturgies Eastern and Western, p. 332.

248
faithfully guard the Church dogma against heresy. His obligation was then

to pass on this dogma unsoiled to the next generation. As St. John

Chrysostomos reminds the Church, the trust and deposit of faith is from

God, and it comes to the bishop through the Grace of the Holy Spirit

received at ordination, but there is the idea of defending, preserving and

9 6
handing this treasure to subsequent Christians. Clement of Rome

provided this sense of the continuum of the sacred deposit of faith that he

9 7
received and in turn was obliged to pass onto his h e i r s .

In a sermon on the First Epistle of Timothy St. John Chrysostomos defines

"TTapaKcn-aGTiKri". What is the parakatatheki? It is the faith. It is the

9 8
message of the Apostles." Simply put, this is the message of the

inheritance of the apostolic testament to their successors. This

guardianship and transmittal of the uncorrupted pure faith was the bishop's

commitment. Nikephoros expressed the sense of this burden as he prayed

before leaving his Cathedral for the last time. He prostrated himself in St.

Sophia and prayed:

...I commend into Thy hand, all powerful even now,

this <Church> that is without spot or blemish, just
as I received it from <Thy hand>, watched over it
in reverence as best I could, and kept it fixed upon

8 6
Dumont, D. and Smith, R. (1995) T.L.G. - CD. Rom, Pacific Palisades C A , St John
Chysostomos, Scr. Eccle. Degregessue S e c . 19, lines 4 - 5 : " e u x d d v a < t > £ p o > v i c a t e A e y o v K u p i e ,
£
T ? I V ^ n i o T E U 0 £ T a d v \ioi E K K A T i a i ' a v ? x
v
^ irapaKaTaGrjici] oi) n d p e i | i i e y u , d M d n d p e i a u , . . "

9 7
Ibid., Clement o f Rome, Contestatio, Chapter 3, S e c . 2 lines 10 - 12: " ...d\io(uq TTOITI'CFO) T W
y d p tma\c6i\iii \iou n a p a t c a T a Q ^ a o n a i , T v a , e ( n e v T U X O I . ^AIKICK; yevdjiEvoi;, d^io^ eTvai

TT(CTT£U><;, <3Q i r a T i ^ a v T T a p m c a T a O ^ K T i v T<V T E " K V W dTio8waq K < r r d T O V T f j g 5 i a ( i a p T i > p ( a ( ; Xdyov."

9 8
Ibid., St John Chysostomos, In Epistlarum II ad Timotheum (1 - 10), vol. 6 2 , p. 608 lines 5 - 6 :
" "T( tail T T a p a i c a T a G r j K t i ; ' H nioii\, T O K i f c u y i i a "

249
 the rock of true belief, as a place and tabernacle
of Thy glory, <Thy Church> has preserved its all-
beautiful majesty, conducted to Thee many sons
and heirs by means of holy baptism, and rendered
countless multitudes fit for Thy compassion and
favour through enduring repentance. To Thee, O
Saviour, I deliver this sacred trust, albeit with
unworthy hands, and I give over to the great deep
of Thy judgements the disposition of the
<Church's> affairs as seems best <to Thee>...For
in the best offering we could make, we have also
preserved these <teachings> unblemished for
Thee, the first born of every creature...Under the
seal of the pure confession <of faith>, I have
secured the teachings of the <church> fathers, and
I have been wholly eager to entrust to you <those
teachings>, that can not be despoiled by heretical
distortions. Farewell, < 0 p a t r i a r c h a l throne, that I
mounted not without constraint and that I now
vacate under even greater constraint. Farewell, O
godly shrines of the martyrs adorned with images
of <the martyrs'> struggles and of the
Gospel...Farewell, too, O great city of God [i.e.,
Constantinople], and those of your <inhabitants>
whose mainstay is sound patristic doctrine; I have
commended them to your <sheltering> wings and
to God's, so that no winged creature of evil might
9 9
remove them from your loving c a r e .

Ignatios the Deacon, The Life of Patriarch Nicephoros I of Constantinople in Byzantine

Defenders of Images - Eight Saints' Lives in English translation, pp. 116 - 118. Bold indicates the
Bishop's responsibility.

250
Fr. Congar has summed up this entire concept in a few sentences. He

commented on the Pauline passages, which are so critical to the Church's

understanding of this aspect of Holy Tradition. He expounds in this way:

In the final analysis, what the apostles had

transmitted, and what was to be faithfully
transmitted in the future, never belonged to them.
They had only been servants, and trustees already,
having to transmit something which had been
entrusted to them on behalf of others, that is to say
certain truths and a certain understanding of God's
plan of salvation, of which Christ was the centre: in
short, the word of God, the truth, the didascalia in
line with orthodox religious belief. The moment we
find that he who transmits the truth is not its first
source, that there is an intermediary, that an
unchanging truth must be transmitted by men who
will eventually disappear, "tradition" in the objective
sense of the word necessarily assumes the form of
a "deposit"; and this is already true in the case of
100
the a p o s t l e s .

The hierarchs at Nicaea II who had returned to orthodoxy, by repenting

their iconoclastic views were received by the Council and Patriarch

Tarasios. They were required to sign and accept the Horos and Canons of

this Council. Canon II became the standard for all former and new bishops.

It stated, "That he who is to be ordained a Bishop must steadfastly be

Congar, Tradition and Traditions An historical and theological essay, p. 20.

251
 1 0 1
resolved to observe the canons, otherwise he shall not be ordained."

With this certification by the former iconoclasts, their situation had now

changed. They had been welcomed back into the good graces of the

Church on the strength of their own confession and repentance. They were

cleansed of their error; with the advent of the second phase of iconoclasm

and the re-defection of many of the same offenders, their sin was not

1 0 2
heresy, a choice of a teaching of theological error, but apostasy.

Apostasy involved more than theological error, it was the total

abandonment of the Church and her teachings. The holy Church had been

entrusted to Methodios. He would not and could not allow apostates to

pollute and poison the Church, her children and future generations.

Therefore, there was no choice. As, he said in the closing paragraphs of

his homily on the Sunday of Orthodoxy.

We will research the writings and the traditions of

the Fathers and we will imitate them. As we found
the Church, we will leave it. Thus, we will pass it
on. We will not separate ourselves from the
Fathers; perhaps, the next generation would
anathematise and exhume us. Surely, we will not
gain even if we go to the ends of the earth. I hope,
beseech and if I exist, even unworthy of heaven
and earth, that God grant that I am in communion
with the Six Ecumenical Synods and have a place
1 0 3
among t h e m .

Percival (ed.), A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church
The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church, vol. 14, p. 556.
1 0 2
C r o s s and Livingstone (eds.), Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, p. 74.
1 0 3
Afinogenov, Constantinopolitan Patriarchate • The Iconoclastic Crisis in Byzantium (784 • 847)
- in Russian, p. 188.

252
 Chapter Five

LITERARY HARVEST

1
By the work one knows the workman.

Introduction

This sage epigram written centuries after the death of Patriarch Methodios

has varied and multitudinous applications; notwithstanding, it can be

applied to Methodios, the man and to his writings. In this limited survey of

some of the compositions from the pen of the Patriarch, the goal will not be

to analyse each work completely, sentence-by-sentence, page-by-page, but

to uncover more of the man within his works. The aim will be to discover

the flesh and blood person, who irrespective of his monastic profession,

struggled with passions, the hagiographer dedicated to praising the lives of

holy men and women, the ecclesiastical leader who guarded his office's

prerogatives, the poet, the man of his times and most importantly the

defender of the faith in a period of deep division and dispute.

Previously, comments have been offered on some of Methodios' major

works, his correspondence and liturgical selections. These will not be

repeated but general comments may be offered referring to these excerpts.

Methodios presents several difficulties for the analyst of his works. In this

introduction, his stylistic proclivities will be noted and examples will be cited

1
Fables, bk 1 (1668), fable 21, J e a n de L a Fontaine.

253
as the compositions are enumerated. First, there is a problem of accurately

dating his compositions, although, some can be approximated by a

2
terminus post quern method. Methodios used obscure language and he

had a habit of "coining" words to fit his meaning. Many times, these

situations were the deliberate use of language to convey theological,

political or derisive meanings. Another technique Methodios used is the

repetition of several words or phrases in a sentence or a paragraph. Many

times, he used these anaphorae and alliterations of similar words to project

meaning and in certain situations; he applied these word patterns and

anaphorae for emphasis and as a literary device. In addition to these

points, Methodios' linguistic syntax was extremely complex and convoluted.

This trait has been called by Professor Sevcenko, "Methodian in its

3
obscurity and its preciosity"

One attribute that becomes evident, even when one makes a cursory

examination of the works of the Patriarch, is his intimate and thorough

grasp of Scripture. He consistently used Biblical imagery, scriptural

archetypes and figures from the Bible as metaphors and lessons to both his

listeners and readers. Among his favourite scriptural characters are Moses,

Job, David and St. Paul. The use of these personalities becomes symbolic

of the deeper messages that Methodios intended and they convey

theological insight into man's condition. Other thematic constructs that are

2
This is most applicable to the Vitae, where the date of the death of the subject is known from
Church tradition or some other independent source, which provides a terminus post quern for the
Vita. Also, in some works biographical information is revealed to allow the reader to relate to
events and to approximate time frames.
3
Sevcenko, "Hagiography of the Iconoclastic Period," in Iconoclasm, p. 125.

254
also apparent are the repeated references to Incarnational theology,

salvational economy and mankind's pre-lapsarian state. No doubt, these

themes were influenced and shaped by the theological struggle to defend

images. They provided a basis for a strong historical and Traditional

underpinning of the iconodulic response to the iconoclastic arguments.

Even though these points of view were not original to Methodios, he used

them with effectiveness and precision.

The major catalogues of the Methodian Corpus can be found in the

following references:

4
1) Allatius in PG t. c, col: 1231 - 1239.
2) Krumbacher, Geschichte der byzantinische
n d
Literatur, 2 ed. p. 167.
3) Pitra, Juris ecclesiastic! Graecorum historia et
5
monumenta, t. ii, pp. 353 - 365.
4) Grumel and Darrouzes, Les Regestes des
Actes du Patriarcat de Constantinople, vol. I,
Les Actes des Patriarches, Fasc. II et III , Les
6
Regestes de 715 a 1206, pp. 63 - 86.
5) Beck, Theologische Literatur im Byzantinischen
7
Reich, pp. 4 9 6 - 5 1 9 .

4
Migne (ed.), Patrologiae cursus completus: Series graeca.
5
Pitra, " S . Methodius C P . "
6
Grumel and Darrouzes (eds.), Les Regestes Des Actes Du Patriarcat De Constantinople (715 -
1206).
7
Beck, H. G . (1959) Theologische Literatur Im Byzantine Reich, Handbuch Im Rahmen des
Handbuchs der Altertumswissenschaft (C.H. Beck), Munich.

255
The literary activity of the holy Patriarch was considerable; but much of it

survives, as shall be shown, only in fragments. The works of this

churchman can be grouped and classified in the following classifications.

Polemic writings: this group consists of the Methodian writings and the role

they played in the context of the struggle against and the victory over the

heresy of the iconoclasts. The composition Contra Iconomachos (Against

the Iconoclasts) represents this class of writings and the source for these

works is PG, tomos c, cols. 1233 - 1234. Another example of this type of

composition is Frri KCtOaipecei T<3V dnooTdvTwv iepiwv. It is a dogmatic

letter to the Patriarch of Jerusalem concerning apostate clergy. This can be

found in Pitra pp. 355 - 357, a long extract is also given in Mai Nova...\. v,

p. 144, 267 and reproduced in Migne. "FrcOecrig rrspi T<SV dyiojv EIKOVUV is

a homily accredited to Methodios. Adyog nepi rwv dyiojv EIKOVUV is a

related work. These works and all the texts associated with it were

discussed and analysed in the section The Synodicon in Chapter 2.

The next classification of compositions by Patriarch Methodios is Works

against the Studite Leadership. These works of Methodios fall into three

groups. There are letters, of which large parts survive. There is extant a

portion of a Synodal decree concerning the disciplining of the wayward

Studites. Lastly, there are fragmentary remains of letters to the Studite

leadership and the monks of the Studite monasteries.

The third classification of Methodian works is Canonical Writings, which

include Constitutio de haereticorum ad paenitentiam receptione" (The

256
Constitution on heretics who repent). This work has a similar background

as Works against Studite Leadership. Before 1990, it appeared with

various titles in mss in Goar's Euchologion, pp. 876 ff; which has recently

been re-edited and released by Perenti and Velkovska, L'Eucologio

Barberini Gr. 336 (ff. 1 - 263). In addition, parts of it can be found in MPG,

tomos c cols 1300 - 1325, or in Pitra, pp. 362 363. This last entry cites

only the canonical portion of the work. There is another mss tradition from

Codex Ambros. gr. 803, folio 138 - 151, which presents a very differing text

from the above. Fortunately, as discussed, the work of Arranz has helped

to systematise this composition.

The fourth and perhaps the most revealing class of Methodian works is

Hagiography. This group includes shorter accounts from saint's lives, or

writings dealing with only their martyrdom. In this collection there is an

encomion honouring St. Agatha, a set of scholia on the Vita of St. Marina,

an abbreviated Vita of St. Nicholas and an encomion on St. Nicholas written

by Methodios. The longest hagiographic texts attributed to Methodios are

found in this category; they are two complete Vitae. The Vita of St.

Theophanes the Confessor and the Vita of St. Euthymios of Sardis, both

heroes of the iconodules, will be analysed.

The last category of compositions by St. Methodios is that of Poems and

Liturgical Writings. These writings include various texts. The longest of

liturgical texts are the hymns associated with the Triumph of Orthodoxy,

which have been previously discussed. In addition, there are paracletic

257
canons and idiomela written by the Patriarch. A listing of them can be

8
found in Pitra. He also gives a first list from the mss catalogues [Liturgical

Fragments, see, Pitra n. 2 1 , 22 and 23]. There are a minimal number,

which were not available for examination, but for completeness, they will be

noted and listed.

Polemic Writings

Contra Iconomachos

"Against the Iconoclasts", these writings are found in PG, tomos c, col.

1233 - 1234. They are fragmentary pieces of longer works, which will be

reviewed, or a reading from the Synaxarion, which outlines the contribution

of Methodios in the iconoclastic struggle.

Eni KaGaipf.ar.i TUJV drToaTavTuv if.pf.ojv

This is a dogmatic letter to the Patriarch of Jerusalem concerning apostate

clergy. Even though this composition has been previously discussed, the

following additional comments are cogent at this time. Methodios reserved

his most damning criticism for John the Grammarian and his cadre of

followers. He described John's behaviour and attitudes. These details

were outlined for the Patriarch of Jerusalem, so that he could understand

the post-restoration climate in Constantinople. Methodios did this in order

to illustrate, not only John's lack of repentance, but also his arrogance and

8
Pitra, " S . Methodius C P " , p. 354.

258
his lack of even the slightest sense of remorse for his heretical activity. As

the Patriarch gives an account of what John the Grammarian's activities

were while Methodios occupied the Patriarchal throne, it becomes obvious

to the reader that John did not retire to a quiet life away from the capital, as

might have been expected of a penitent. Rather, he attempted to seek

public justification and vindication for his actions. Methodios states that

John pretends to be the Publican (see Luke 18, 10 - 14) but is neither truly

humble nor repentant. In his letter, Methodios points out that John and his

cronies had continued to act in a haughty manner, glaring at people and

dishonouring Christ and his Church. Therefore, Methodios states, without

reservation, that John and his retinue were unworthy of re-instatement into

9
the C h u r c h . This, in fact, was the case during Methodios' entire lifetime.

Ibid., p p . 3 5 6 - 3 5 7 : "..."ctT£p udvov TOO TEAEUTOI'OU TOUTE'OTIV EOXOTOU K a i npoj-rov EXG(OTOU

l O T l a v o u
Tfj? dAriGEiaq 'Iwdvvou, \ir\be "OAUIQ TTWTTOTE ^OVE'VTOQ xP \ K a
' KArjpou Adyov O U K

£axt1«dTo<;, 01)8 ' £n£KT£(vavTog atravTwv T I V ( . TaflTa dpGuig K a i A(av KCXAUQ 81' d A f y o u
t\cQe\i£vr\c, Tfjc; u\iEj£paq d5£A())iKfjg a£BaanidTT)TO<;, l8ou cnjuepov TpiEToOg TTATIPWGEVTOI; xpovou,
Kai TOU TETapTou dp^anEVOu, OU8EVO Kaptrdv TOV Sid TIVOQ TanEivd^povog Adyou Kai
aKAripayuyfai; p i o u "i]pEji(ag ^GEAOUOIOU SEIKVUJIEVOV rrapd TIVI TUSV "OAWV adTiBv TTWTTOTE

"eyvwuEv oO y a p d<|>puv jiq, "i^v n a p d TIDV dG^uv EK£(VWV aip£TiK<3v Eiia(p£iv KOCKWQ "EHOGE,

miaanQaai K a i KOTEVEYKETV £pouArj6ii TO auvoAov, odx tig ataxuvrig vev^r\a\ievoc, auvrfaQTl

£auT<v, O U K "EOTII (iaKpd0£v oO K a G d P p i a E v dy(ou TOTTOU i n T f a p a K A i v d j i E v o c ; , Tipoq V
EV \iipoq
EuAaPod|iEvoi; irpoO£|ipAEi|)ac, TOIQ GE(OI<; OUK lbot,ev dvo(y£iv TOUQ d^GAajiouq, K a i TOXOI; ndAiv
ta^aXiae T O V TEAWVTJV TiQq E i K O v ( £ w v K a i [EK] TOUTOU jiaGiiTEudiiEvoQ, "iv" "EXT) K a i TI]V auToO
E U p E i v 6\ioii>)c, napd TOO <|>iAav0pii)Trou 0EOO SiKai'waiv. 'AAA' do"Kap5d|iuKTO<; (IEV anac; irpdc; T O

dT£v(^£iv ToTg dvT' auT<3v K a T a i a x u G E i a i v auToO [ 0 E O O ] vaotg, dm]pu9piaauEvo<; 5 E Tipog T O V

n a p a T u y x d v o v T a i^n<3v EKOOTOV K a i p A o a u p d v ( i £ V T r p o a P A ^ T i w v aJg UTTEPKEIUEVOI;- Taupr|56v hk

Kai Ao^tJ T<V d<(i0aAu(V K a i Trupivali; TaTg Kopaig a n d Kopu<(>fjc; (if'xpi TTO8(3V K a i dvo ITO8<3V tni
KE^aArjg ?jinaAiv T O V dpw^iEvov auTiJ dvajiETpou^EvoQ, fiflnd T E T O I O O T O V aKAripdv K a i

S a K ^ G u f i o v i\ i £ auToO KivdJv if T<$ OUAAOAETV iTiaTioKpivd^iEvoQ• o T o v o u Ai'Gou n A r i y f j OU5E PoAij

TO^OU £((>' EV TI \iipoc, if JIEAOQ T(? npoopayfjvai KOTOSUVWV, dAA' otov do|j(j>ai'a T r o i r j a o i , pEaov
ioxuf 8iaT£Ao0aa Kai t r p i v if EKaupfjvai if\v tj»uxrjv TOU pAt]GEVTog npoE^aipifaaaa- OUKOUV Sid
TOOTO OUT£ TfpWTOV EV X d P O T O V i a TipOEKp(va(l£V OUTE EOXOTOV T O O TfpdJTOU."

259
 Works against the Studite Leadership

The overall conflict between the Patriarch and the monks has been

discussed in Chapter 3 under the section labelled, "Methodios and the

Studites". One vital point that must be underlined is whatever "evidence"

which remains available to us has been filtered through the perspectives of

the Patriarchal scribes and historians. The lack of credible supporting

documents or even documents with opposite points of view make impartial

historical analysis difficult.

As can be shown, until the late 1980's, piecing together a complete picture

of the works against the Studites also involved quite a lot of research. The

amassing of the documentary sources required much referencing and

1 0
cross-referencing, until Professor Darrouzes' definitive study. This article

gathered all the scattered framents, catalogued and systematised them into

one source. The substance of the Methodian works will not be re-analysed,

but the archive is to be explained and simplified in Appendix I.

Darrouzes, "Le patriarche Methode contre les iconoclastes et les studites"

260
 Canonical Writings

Constitutio de haereticorum ad paenitentiam receptione

"The Constitution on the reception of heretics to penance"

The understanding of this document has become more succinct with the

1 1
publication of a defining article in 1990. Arranz gathered all the sources,

with the exception of the Ambrosiana manuscript, into one paper. He

provided an analysis of the steps that Patriarch Methodios took to insure

1 2
the Church was free of heretics. The primary question, whether

Methodios was too harsh or too lenient in his treatment of the lapsed

iconoclasts could be reviewed at this time. When one looks at the fact that

Methodios established categories of transgressors and a sliding scale of

severity of penances, two conclusions can be deduced. First, Methodios'

cardinal motivation was to prevent the re-appearance of iconoclasm by

denying it leadership. To accomplish this goal, he was most severe with

two groups: adult apostates, who freely abandoned the Holy Church

embracing the heresy and the second group, with whom Methodios was

1 3
particularly strict, was the clergy. The Patriarch prevented this group

from re-entering the ranks of the ordained clergy. The best voice that could

be heard concerning this subject is the voice of Methodios, himself.

1 1
Arranz, "La « D i a t a x i s » du patriarchs Methods pour la reconciliation des Apostats".
1 2
For my evaluation and overview of these "Rulings" by Methodios, s e e Chapter Three - The
Consequences of the Restoration of Icons.
1 3
Arranz, "La « D i a t a x i s » du patriarche Methode pour la reconciliation des Apostats", p. 293 ff.

261
 We also know the most truthful appeal that the
saint of the desert made to me and to those
accompanying me to the place two years ago: 'if
you accept the heretics a s ministers and priests,
expect that through them you introduce into the
1 4
Church not only Judaism, but Paganism.

Afinogenov correctly analyses Methodios' underlying raison d'etre for de-

frocking the lapsed clergy. Following Patriarch Nikephoros' evolution in

thinking, Methodios was convinced that this group of men had led the

1 5
heresy by violating the oath required of them at their ordination. Simply

16
put, in his eyes, they were perjurers. This reason explains Methodios'

actions, although Afinogenov's conclusion that the primary justification for

17
Methodios' behaviour was the "vindication of his p r e d e c e s s o r s " could well

be supplemented by a consideration of the development of Patriarch

18
Methodios' ecclesiology. An additional reason for Methodios' campaign

against the iconoclastic clergy emerges from this last perspective. He was

motivated by this deep conviction that it was his sacred duty and

responsibility to cleanse the Church, a s its archshepherd. He was

1 4
Darrouzes, "Le patriarchs Methode contre les iconoclastes et les studites", Fragment 2, p.54: "
v v
E y v w ( i £ v 5e K a i TO np6g a u T o v t\ik K a i T O U ? a u | i T T a p d v T C t q \ioi Kcrrd xwp<* AaA>i6£v n a p d TOU
V U V
£prmiKoO dyfou upo XP^ SuoTv dAriBEaTcrrov npoacfiuvTijia, (Ac,- el 5E^I] jodq aipETiKoGc;
A t i T o u p y o u i ; TE K a i IEPETC;, ou ( j d v o v [ouba'io\i6v, dAAd K a i s X A r i v i a i i o v 5i' a u T u v n p o a d ^ a i Ti]
'EKKAr)a(a dnEK5exou." For translation s e e Afinogenov, " K f i N E T A N T l N O Y n o A l E i E n i Z -
K o n o N | E X E I : Part III - The Great Purge of 843: A Re-Examination", p. 85.
1 5
Percival (ed.), A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church
The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church, vol. 14, p. 555 and 556, C a n o n s 1 and 2.
1 6
Afinogenov, " KftN2)TANTINOYnOAIZ|EniXKOnoN|EXEI: Part III - The Great Purge of 843: A
Re-Examination," pp. 88 - 89.
1 7
Ibid., p. 89.
1 8
S e e previous chapter.

262
determined to pass-on "a spotless bride" to his successors and to the flock

that would come after him.

Hagiographical Works

Martyrium Sancti Dionysii

"Mccprupiov TOU iv dyioig Aiovucriou TOO 'Apsonayirou, POJOTIKOO Kai

'FAeuOepiou "

This work can be found in P G , tomos iv, cols. 669 - 684. In addition, it can

1 9
be found in an analysis of mss vulcanianus 52 by Westerbrink. This

hagiographic work is of Methodian origin and the chronology is fairly

certain. Between 815 and 820, Methodios was in residence in Rome.

Patriarch Nikephoros had sent him there, while he served as his

archdeacon. There is evidence that Methodios produced several pieces of

hagiography and liturgical hymnography at this time. Westerbrink in his

analysis of the language and syntax finds numerous direct quotations from

2 0
the works of Nikephoros. Canart provides additional proof that this work

was produced in this time frame in his article dealing with this period in

Methodios' life. Quoting from ms, Londiniensis Brit. Libr. Addit. 36.821,

folio (196r), Canart cites one of three entries in the manuscript, which

1 9
Westerbrink, J . C . (1937) Passio S. Dionysii Areopagitae - Rustici et Eleutherii (C. Haasbeek),
Alphen.
2 0
Ibid., pp. 64 - 122, Westerbrink cites many direct linguist connections with this work and with
various works of Nikephoros. The Life of St. Stephen the Younger by the Deacon Stephen is also a
rich source of quotes by Methodios. Cross-referenced with Auz6py, La Vie d'Etienne le Jeune par
Etienne le Diacre..

263
 2 1
verifies that Methodios authored the work while in Rome. There is

another line of reasoning to support this conclusion. This is found within

both the text itself and through some revealing information from the work of

modern scholars. There was known, during this period, two traditions of the

Passio of St. Dionysios the Aeropagitae, one familiar to the Western Church

2 2
and one to the Eastern Church. The contrasting versions are exchanged

at different times within a few years of each other. In the Western account,

2 3
Dionysios dies in Paris under the Emperor Domitian. The Byzantine

24
passio was written by Michael Synkellos in a period between (821 - 833).

This version of the passion of Dionysios, accepted in Constantinople, stated

25
that the saint's passing took place during the reign of the Emperor Trajan.

What does Methodios reflect in his Martyrium or Passio? In the last

paragraph, Methodios writes that the three saints, Dionysios, Rusticos and

th
Eleutherios all suffered martyrdom in Gaul near Paris on the 7 day of

2 6
October under the Emperor Domitian. Therefore, we can reasonably

assume that Methodios was working from a Western Church tradition and

prior to the exchange of manuscript traditions by the Eastern and Western

courts in 825. The lack of mention of the Eastern tradition also places the

2 1
Canart, "Le Patriarche Methode de Constantinople Copiste a Rome", pp. 345 - 346: " TO8E
TfpojTioTov jf\c, ^ t i v i q M E 0 O 5 ( O I O TEOKTO f p y o v AiToypa«|)(r)g E V TTEPIKAU TW 'Pwurr irpoi;
tcopu<|>a(ou n ^ T p o u i i E y a p u ) T<D Auaindxflw."
2 2
Louth, A. (1994) Denys L'Areopagite et sa Post6rit6 en Orient et en Occident, vol. 151 ed. Y.
de Andia (Institut d'Etudes Augustiniennes, Paris), pp. 329 - 339, pp. 336 - 339.
2 3
Ibid., p. 338.
2 4
Cunningham, The Life of Michael the Synkellos - Text, Translation and Commentary, p. 36,
note 120.
2 5
Louth, p. 338, " the encomion delivered [by Michael Syncellus] honouring St. Denys was 3
October, sometime before 833".
2 6
Westerbrink, Passio S. Dionysii Areopagitae - Rustici et Eleutherii, p. 62: "FlaGovTEQ \i£v ity'
a n a ! ; EB5dnrj <KctAav5<3v> TOO drriouppiou ol TpETg U E p t a i T f j g TaXAi'aQ trpog T f j riapia(q< TIOAEI
ETTI A o u E T i a v o u PaoiA^tug..."

264
time of writing before Methodios returns to Constantinople. Accordingly,

the placing of this writing while Methodios was residing in Rome is very

probable. Canart adds this comment concerning the future patriarch's

interest and work while in Rome.

Nous savions deja par les scholies a la Passion de

sainte Marine; que Methode s'interessait au texte
du pseudo-Denys en voila une confirmation
precieuse, qui s'ajoute au panegyrique du saint
compose et prononce par le futur patriarche, soit a
27
Rome, soit plus tard a Constantinople.

Even though Westerbrink is working from another mss tradition there is a

great chance that this represents the very same document. Turning to style

and content, we can examine the text and identify Methodios in the

language and the thought. Beginning in section two, we find two of the

most familiar literary devices used by Methodios. There is repetition of the

play on words "Aiovuaiou and ©eovucriou", which is a technique that

2 8
Methodios uses to draw attention to the sanctity of Dionysios.

Although this work was presumably written many years before Methodios'

struggles as Patriarch, we discover some evidence of his foundational

theological thought at this time. The concept of apostolic authority and the

bishop's leadership in the Church can be detected even at this early stage

in Methodios' ecclesiastical career. The young refugee cleric describes

2 7
Canart, "Le Patriarche Methode de Constantinople Copiste a Rome", p. 348, note 21.
2 8
Westerbrink, Passio S. Dionysii Areopagitae - Rustici et Eleutheri, p. 44.

265
Clement, bishop of Rome as the apostolic chair, God-governor. Methodios

2 9
then states that Clement is surefooted as the head of the Tribunal.

Beginning in section 11, Methodios builds a chain of authority for Dionysios

3 0
from the Lord, to St. Paul and then to the Areopagitae. At the same time,

T
Methodios repeats over and over the words " f i K£tyahx\c,.. " as he refers to

Dionysios and to the image of Christ as the Head of the Church. This

phrase is reiterated, in one form of the word or another, nine times in two

3 1
pages of text. The authority and more importantly, the role of the bishop,

as a guardian of the Faith is based on an unbroken and immutable chain

handed down from the Apostles while keeping Holy Tradition inviolate. As

was shown in the previous chapter, the responsibility and charge of the

bishop becomes central in Methodios' ecclesiology. He does not use

Dionysian theology to defend the iconodulic theology but does use the

3 2
Passio to underline his ecclesiology of Apostolic teachings and authority.

Oratio in S. Agatham

" 'EyKoffJiov eig rfjv dyiav fjsyaAofjdprupa TOU XpiaroG AydOrjv"

This work of Patriarch Methodios has been available and edited in Latin in

Acta Sanctorum, fev. t. 1(1658), pp.624 - 631. It can also be found

2 9
Ibid., p. 48, lines 23 - 25: "KArjuev-ri, ir\v d u o o T o A i K i i v KaG^Spav GEOKUPEPVI^TWQ o i a i a ^ o v T i .
K a i TOUTO T(5v TTO5WV, WC; dvoA(a6u>v (xv<3v Kopotyaiaq Tp(|3ou,.."
3 0
Ibid., p. 56, lines 1 0 - 1 8 .
3 1
Ibid., pp. 56 - 58 (Greek text only appears on even numbered pages).
3 2
Ibid., p. 52, lines 23 - 24: "..ETTI T<3V dtrooTdAwv 6i5ax^v x a t pctSTjTEuaetv."

266
Combefis, Bibl. concion., tomos vi, p. 728, and P G , tomos c, cols. 1271 -

1292. The Greek text had been available unedited in codex Valicell. B, K

17 and Allatius xxxiv. Professor E . Mioni working from a codex Veneto

Marciano 362 found that it = Codex Vallicelliano B 34. Therefore, this

3 3
Greek text is the basis for our work.

There has also been a recent analysis of this Methodian composition in a

3 4
monograph by Dirk Krausmuller. In this work, the Mioni source was used

as the basis of his study. By examining the mss evidence as well as

3 5
several independent studies, such as L. Bernardini, Canart and

Krausmuller, there does not seem to be an opinion as to when or where this

encomion was written. If we look at the attribution, it is attributed to

36
"Methodios Archbishop of Constantinople". The fact is we do not know if

this was the addition of a scribe, or the actual period of his life in which

Methodios wrote the work.

What can be determined is the appeal of this particular martyr to

Methodios. Agatha and Methodios shared a common homeland, Sicily. St.

37
Agatha was from C a t a n i a and as we know, Methodios was a native of

Mioni, E. (1950), "L'Encomio di S . Agata di Methodio Patriarca di Constantinopli", Analecta

Bollandiana, tomos Iviii, pp. 58 - 93.
3 4
Krausmuller, D. (1999) "Divine Sex: Patriarch Methodios' concept on virginity," in Desire and
Denial in Byzantium - Papers from the Thirty-first Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies
University of Sussex, Brighton, March 1997, vol.6 ed. L J a m e s (Variorum/Ashgate), Aldershot, pp.
57 - 67.
3 5
Bernardini, L. (1977), "Un lllustre Siracusano: Metodio I Patriarca di Constantinopli (843 - 847)
Vincitore del II Iconoclasmo", Oriente Christiano, vol. 17 (1), pp. 42 - 66, articles in multi-parts.
3 6
Mioni cites that his title is changed to "Patriarch".
3 7
Mioni, "L'Encomio di S . Agata di Methodio Patriarca di Constantinopli", p. 61: "Agata e nata in
urbe Catanensium...come la soma Gloria di Catania."

267
Syracusa. In this work, Methodios praises the life and courage of the

virgin-martyr, St. Agatha. Agatha lived in the middle of the third century in

3 9
Sicily. Turning to what can be extracted from the text itself, we can find a

number of anecdotal clues within the writing of this piece. Methodios

begins by praising Agatha's martyrdom. These "clues" concern timing; this

may be indicated by Methodios' theological considerations at the time of

composition. Even more important than chronology, we have the contextual

implications of the writing itself and the stylistic evidence of Methodian

4 0
authorship. Beginning in Chapter 3 of the Oration and continuing through

the next page, some 32 lines of text, Methodios counterpoises the words

"yuvti and TrapGevog". He uses the word "yuvn" thirteen times in this

passage and "-napQivoq" eleven. This is done not only for meaning, but

also for the rhetorical effect that these words imply. In the introductory part

of his text, Methodios presents his heroine to the audience in her roles as

"woman" and "virgin". This reference to the gender of Agatha is contrasted

with her purity and goodness. When he speaks about her as woman, he

4 1
adds that she was a "woman" by nature, not by choice. Conversely, she

chose the path of virginity and purity for Christ.

The encomion continues by praising her name Agatha ('Ayd0r|), which is

translated "good". Methodios uses the word Agatha and good seven times

Migne (e<±), Patrologiae cursus completus: Series graeca, tomos c, col. 1245 b, Vita Methodios
of Constantinople.
3 9
Acta S S I, tomos i, pp. 595 sqq.
4 0
Mioni, "L'Encomio di S . Agata di Methodio Patriarca di Constantinopli", p. 77, line 1.
4 1
Krausmuller, "Divine Sex: Patriarch Methodios' concept on virginity", p. 59.

268
in an anaphora over the course of eleven lines. He celebrates the martyr in

this manner, Agatha, the name of our saint, means "good". She was truly

good, for she lived a s a child of God. Agatha, goodness coincides with her

name and her way of life. She won a good name by her noble deeds, and

by her name, she points to the nobility of those deeds. Agatha, her mere

name, wins all men over to her company. She teaches them by her

4 2
example to hasten with her to the true Good, God alone.

Methodios relates the event of the issuing of an edict by the Emperor

Decius against Christians and the result was that the official Quintianus,

moved by passion for Agatha, attempts to use her Christian beliefs as a

43
lever for gaining Agatha's sexual favours. Agatha rebukes him by

4 4
declaring that she is Christ's servant. She is then imprisoned and

tortured in a most cruel manner. She is subjected to the removal of her

breasts and does not receive any subsequent medical care for her

45
wounds. Methodios recounts the miraculous healng of Agatha in her

4 6
prison cell by St. Peter. Agatha is subjugated to repeated tortures and

ultimately her tormentors lay out her naked body on a bed of burning coals.

Amid her ordeal, God causes an earthquake and answers Agatha's prayer

4 7
to end her pain. She dies thanking God.

Mioni, "L'Encomio di S . Agata di Methodic- Patriarca di Constantinople, p. 78 chapter 4.

4 3
Ibid., pp. 79 - 80, chapters 6 - 7 .
4 4
Ibid., p. 82, chapter 11, lines 1 - 2 : " ' A n o K p i ' v E T a i pap-rug T a x O T a T a « OiK£Tr|Q UE"V dpi
TOO X p i a T o O K a i dVwv T a x a SiEpAEt^ag T q v SOUAEI'V | i o i r » . . . "
4 5
Ibid., p. 85, chapters 1 8 - 1 9 .
4 6
Ibid., p. 88, chapter 23.
4 7
Ibid., p. 89, chapters 26 - 28.

269
Krausmuller characterises Methodios' literary style and narrative approach

in his monograph. This viewpoint is alluring when the entire thrust of his

paper is examined.

Methodios was anything but a naive story-teller to

whom the meaning of his stories were self-evident
Quite the contrary: he clearly held the belief that
meaning can only be established by transcending
the contingencies of the narrative. Methodios'
main preoccupation is to bring the phenomena of
4 8
the world into a meaningful order.

Even though this is one valid perspective, another consideration that is

worth examining is the relevancy of the theological intent of several

segments of the text. Examining such a phrase, we see Methodios stating

this: " ...Because in the incorruptible Word of God, even though I am a

corrupt human; by the taste of the flesh of the One and undivided Son, he

4 9
lifts [me] up." This statement of faith is a declaration of the ultimate

message of Incarnational salvation because, through Christ coming to earth

and instituting the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist; all of mankind was

saved. Agatha expressed her faith by those words and Methodios conveys

the iconodules' answer to the iconoclasts. Christ did become truly human,

with flesh, thereby allowing the potential transfiguring of the human

4 8
Krausmuller, "Divine Sex: Patriarch Methodios' concept on virginity", p. 58.
4 9
Mioni, "L'Encomio di S . Agata di Methodio Patriarca di Constantinopli", chapter 3, lines 10 and
11: " . . . S I O T I £K TOO d<(>9dpTou 0eoO Adyou, K<$V 5I' t\ii dvGpwnou <j>9opac; yzuaa\ievou T i j a a p K i
auToO TOU £VOQ Kcti djiep(aTou utou d^eAiiAuGev."

270
condition, in Christ. By the Incarnation, the fullness of the saving economy

of God was realised. This allowed the promise of the metamorphosis of

even the material cosmos, to return to its pre-lapsarian created goodness.

Methodios makes this teaching very clear in this passage describing

Agatha; "You became everything for Him, who had become [Incarnate] for

5 0
your sake."

We see once again, the Patriarch emphasising the Incarnation as the

saving event in human history. This event is a reality to Methodios and to

the saints, whom he uses as lessons for his readers. Krausmuller states,

Methodios' saints, on the other hand, never

communicate with an imageless God. They are
dependent on God's condescension, since God
has manifested himself as man and made all of
these relations possible in the first place. If they
want to relate to him, they must incarnate him
again in their imaginations. Even if Methodios
believes in a God beyond the images, it is clear
that, for him, such a God is neither accessible to
51
humans nor able to have an effect on t h e m .

He also says the following concerning the text of Agatha, but does not draw

the obvious parallel with Methodios' life.

Ibid., chapter 19, p. 86: " . . . m i y E v i ^ T a i 001 ndvTa u o n e p e y e v o u i r p o y t v o n E v ^ auTiiJ bid

O E , . . . " For trans s e e Krausmuller, "Divine Sex: Patriarch Methodios' concept on virginity", page 61,
footnote 21.
5 1
Krausmuller, "Divine Sex: Patriarch Methodios' concept on virginity", p. 61.

271
 Methodios addresses the problem that those who
opt for virginity are bound to be haunted by the
wish to have sexual intercourse with a partner. In
their memories they have stored the respective
images which will present themselves and unchain
5 2
the passion leading to the fulfillment of this wish.

While discussing the life of Methodios, we learned that he endured his own

personal struggles with the fleshly passions. The miraculous cure effected

through the intervention of St. Peter, while Methodios slept by the altar of

5 3
St. Peter's Basilica, was described. Later during his Patriarchate, the

disclosure of his physical limitations acquitted him of the false charges of

5 4
sexual assault brought by his enemies. As we see in this work and will

see repeatedly in others, these experiences of Methodios must have

impacted his psyche, thereby influencing his writings and his attitudes. This

will be demonstrated a s we examine the next writing of the Patriarch.

Acta S. Marinae

M
Ibid., p. 60.

5 3
Bekker (ed.), Chronographia Theophanes Continuatus, p. 159, b - 4 through c - 2: ",.TOV
£ E T v
Koppu<)>otTov n i T p o TCJ x i P ffpoQ ° vaov EKtiETaaaq E ^ E A i n d p E i TUXETV TIVOQ E i r i K o u p i a g Kai
d p w y f j g . K a i 5 q T<? K6m$ T f j g £i3xflc; ^pdi; u i r v o v K A E I 0 E ( Q <|>avfjva( oi T O V drrdaToAov EKEI'VOU
TOU \ilpouq dirrdnEvov K a i Ta<; 6p|idg o B E v v u o v T a T<3V naBaiv, TOOTO (idvov n p o o E i u A E y o v T a TO
d n o A E A u a a i 5r| TT)Q T U V naOwv E n i K p a T E i a g , M £ 0 d 6 i £ . ' "

5 4
Bekker, I. (ed.), ( 1 8 3 8 ) Chronicle of Symeon Magister (Weberi), Bonnae, p. 652, line 11 - 1 6 :
"jiwjiov 8E Tiva ETTEipdTo utTa T(5v ojio(wv auToO TijJ EV dyi'oig ME0O6(4> npoadiTTEiv Kai
yuvaiKa Tiva ^pEvawrnfoavTEc; Kpuipiyajiid^ EyKArma TOUTI^ E T f E i a < | > E p o u a i v . 6 8 E naKapiuiTaToc;
TraTpidpxrig 0E"A(DV t T E T p a 0Kav5dAou Aoy(^£a0ai Td Kpityia afaxr| dnoyuuvoT, Kai £upr|To
trapd TO ^ E n a p a a u E v a . . . "

272
 5
This work can be found in a work by Usener. Also, it can be found in

Jahrbuch fur protestantische theologia, tomos xiii, (1887), pp. 247 ff.

Although labelled Acta, this writing is in reality scholia on the Acta. Scholia

are defined by Cross as:

Notes, especially of a critical, grammatical, or

explanatory kind, inserted in the margins of an
ancient MS. Their use was a regular practice in
the Greek schools of later classical antiquity, and,
probably through the contact between pagan and
Christian culture at Alexandria, they were
introduced by Christian scholars into the M S S , of
5 6
Biblical and ecclesiastical texts.

The text that will be utilised for this survey is the text of Usener. The

composition on St. Marina has several interesting facets. In the opening

attribution, we read that this work is by Patriarch Methodios of

Constantinople. The introduction continues saying it is a work on the

martyrdom of St. Marina written while in residence in Rome at St. Peter's

5 7
[Basilica].

5 5
Methodios of Constantinople (c. 815 - 821) "SXOAIA AFIEP E I I T O MAPTYPION T H E A H A S
MAPINHX," in Festschriftzur funften Sacularfeier der Carl-Ruprechts Universitat zu Heidlelberg, ed.
Usener (Universitats-Buchdruckerei von Carl Georgi), Bonn - 1886, pp. 48 - 53.
5 6
Cross and Livingstone (eds.), The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, p. 1247.
5 7
Methodios of Constantinople, " I X O A I A AI1EP E I Z T O MAPTYPION T H Z A T I A Z MAPINHX", p.
48, references folio [135r]: "ToO dyi'ou M E 9 O 8 ( O U dpxiEiricncdTrou K u v a T a v T i v o u r r d A E w g axdAia,
diTEp ^TTOiqaEv E!Q TO p a p T u p i o v Ttj<; d y f a g Map(vr|g EV T$ papTupoAoyef^i diTEp tfypaipEv
iSioxEi'puii; KaGE^dpEvvot; EV'PWJII] etq TOV d y i o v n^Tpov."

273
With this as an affirmation, we realise that the scholia were written between

5 8
approximately 815 and 820 AD. There is additional evidence that helps

the observant reader identify not only Methodios as the author, but to place

this work chronologically by using the autobiographical information that the

Patriarch shares with the reader.

The Vita of St Marina that is the basis for these scholia is composed by St.

Theotimos who relates the life from his first hand knowledge and

5 9
acquaintance of Marina and her suffering. St. Marina, known in the West

as St. Margaret, lived in the time of the Emperor Diocletian in Pisidia of

6 0
Antioch. The Vita of Marina relates the tale of the young daughter of a

pagan high priest, who is raised by a pious Christian nursemaid after the

61
death of her mother. The life praises the virtues and goodness of Marina

and the influence of her Christian environment until the turning point in the

story occurs. A new ruler Olybrios is assigned to her district with orders to

6 2
persecute Christians. Olybrios is dazzled by Marina's beauty and and

wishes to marry her, but she rebukes him and confesses her faith in Christ

6 3
as her Saviour. The ruler, who is moved by the Devil, threatens Marina

5 8
Canart, "Le Patriarche Methode de Constantinople Copiste a Rome", p. 344: "On sait que, de
815 a 821 environ Methode, partisan resolu des images se refugia a Rome..." Canart continues on
the same page to quote the s a m e proof of authorship and chronology that has been cited in the
above text.
5 9
Methodios of Constantinople, "XXOAIA A r i E P EIX T O MAPTYPION T H E A T I AX MAPINHX", p.
15, lines 6 - 9 .
6 0
C r o s s and Livingstone (eds.), The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, pp. 871 - 872.
6 1
Methodios of Constantinople, " I X O A I A A n E P EIX TO MAPTYPION THX A T I AX MAPINHX", p.
16, lines 2 7 - 2 9 .
6 2 T
Ibid., p. 17, line 4 - 7 : ' " E 6 E TCUQ r j ^ E p a i c ; EKEI'VCUC; T i E p i f j y E v ' O A u p p i o ? 6 frtapxoQ, K a i r|v
Epx6|i£V05 d u o Tfjc; 'Aalaq ETTI TIIV ' AVTIOXE'WV TTO^IV 6A(BEIV ToOg T<? 0E<$ dvaT£0Eiu£vou<;,
oaouq E u p i o K E X p i o T i a v o u q . "
6 3
Ibid., pp. 1 7 - 1 9 .

274
with intent to make her deny Christ and worship pagan idols. Wishing to

placate Marina and to win her over to his position, the ruler offers the young

6 4
girl riches and status over her peers. He then threatens Marina with

6 5
bodily harm and torture. She defiantly states that Olybrios may have

authority over her body, but her soul cannot be harmed and she declares

6 6
she will offer her body as a sacrifice to Christ. Marina is then bound,

scourged and beaten with clubs. Her flesh is torn and she loses a great

6 7
deal of blood. Marina fervently prays to Our Lord to ease her pain.

It is at this point in the text that Methodios begins his scholia by quoting

from one of his most favoured Old Testament books, the book of Job.

Quoting from Job 41, 9 - 10, Methodios sets the struggle between evil and

6 8
man in the context of a battle. With this as the opening, Methodios

frames the story of Marina. The central theme of the scholia is the victory

of goodness over evil, through Marina's struggle against the passion and

intimidation of Olybrios and her steadfastness in the faith. Marina is

praised as an example of a Christian who struggled and was victorious in

6 9
her efforts to humble and weaken the devil, personified as a dragon, and

-
Ibid., 'Tivwcnc^-rwaav ol 0EO(, o'Ti dAew" TO VE'OV I^AIK(CK; OOU O8EV TT£i'a9r|T( jioi Kai Buaov
0 70
loiq GeoTq, Kai troAAd xP'IM " Tiap^^ojiaf a o i Kai KaA<3<; a o i f a T a i linep Trdaag TO<;
i^AiKiwTi5dg a o o . "
6 5
Ibid., p. 20 lines 27 ff.
6 6
Ibid., pp. 2 0 - 2 1 .
6 7
Ibid., pp. 22 - 2 3 .
6 8
Ibid., p. 48. From the L X X , Methodios condensed the quotation to fit his intent.
6 9
Ibid., p. 49, lines 1 5 - 1 6 .

275
his demons. Methodios who was plagued with his own personal demons,

which tempted him to yield to his passions, describes his efforts to be

7 1
relieved from his torments.

Methodios, in the very next sentence, makes the profound statement of how

demons attack the saints, "through other men"; that is, in Marina's story the

person of Olybrios. This sentiment can be viewed in several contexts.

First, the statement could be a generalisation of a theological truth of life.

On the other hand, it might be a reflection of Marina or Methodios' personal

struggles with temptation and the passions of the flesh. Lastly, this might

well refer to the historical backdrop of the second phase of iconoclasm, led

by Leo V, who had unleashed a barrage against Nikephoros and the

7 2
iconodules in Constantinople.

Returning directly to his praise of Marina, Methodios cites, in clear terms,

the source of her strength. He identifies prayer as the power to control evil,

7 3
to relieve distress, and ease sickness. Again, this parallels with the

personal struggles, with which Methodios was battling. The solution to his

own fight with his demons was prayer.

Ibid., p. 48, lines 12 - 16:"...Ae'yu)v T E K a i 5iTiyodp£vog otfv ToTg <|>IAOT<; <()p(TT£iv 6OKET Tag
Ttavoupyiag TOU S a i p o v o g O I O V E ( KaTairAii[T]Td|i£vog, a u v G r j o E T a i Aoindv K a i tvl -rrj paKapia
p d p T u p i TOOTO id y £ y p a p p [ ^ ] v a OUTOK; E X E I V . "
7 1
Ibid., p. 49, lines 1 - 5 : " . . . t i g 6 y v o u g Tag A£HTdTT|Tag T<3V UTTOKPITIKWV K a T a p ^ E w v auToO
K a i O I O V E I y £ V £ i d 8 a g K a i T p i x a g T<5 &auyKardQ[i]nif TOO VOO TtpoEKTfAag G S T T O V £>u<|>Awaag 5 i d
Tf|g T i p w T i i g v i K ? i g TOOTOV TOV SdAov a u T o G d v £ i p £ i K a i £ £ a < | > a [ v ( £ E i ] . . . "

7 2
Ibid., p. 49 lines 6 - 9 : "XTUIEIWTE'OV. ' E m a T a v T a i o l d y i o i owijipovi K a i TTPOOEKTIK<V Aoyian<$
OTI ol TToAEHoOvTEg auToOg 5i' dvGpamwv, 6a(pov£g Eiaiv bid K a i o u TOUTWV, 5T] TWV
dvGpwmuv dAAd T<DV E V E p y o d v T w v S i ' auT(3v K a T E U X o v T a i . " -

7 3
Ibid., p p . 49 - 50, lines 31, 1 - 4: " . . . d tan TOO irvEdpaTog a u T f j g a i a x u v r ) T O V ExGpdv
E I A I I ^ E V auTti y a p ffSTi n d A i v TtpoOEUXETai, K a i OUTW TOO ExGpoO 5 p a K o v T o g Aaf3o|iEvri d a x r ] j i d v
T i v a K a i d a G E v f j , E K T i A a a a K a i TO y E V E i o v d E O T I V T I ) V o i o v d TT£pi<))dvEiav OUTOO, T i 6 r | a i v . . . "

276
The life continues as Marina is imprisoned and completes her prayer. An

earthquake occurs and from a crack in the earth in the corner of her cell

7 4
emerges a ferocious dragon. Again, the maiden beseeches God to

protect her from the dragon of Hades. The dragon attacks Marina and

swallows her. The young Marina protects herself by holding her arms in the

sign of the Cross. The dragon is overcome by the power of the Cross, his

7 5
intestines rupture, and Marina comes forth unharmed. Next, the Devil, in

the form of a man, appears in the cell to try to convince Marina to succomb

to the ruler's enticements. Marina, grabbing the Devil by the hand, then

7 6
beats him about the head, resulting in the removal of his right eye.

At this point, Methodios adds his notation citing the Scriptural reference of

Math. 5, 29, in which, Jesus teaches the lesson of "plucking out an

offending eye". Methodios remarks that the enemy, the Devil, uses the

mind's fantasy and thinking to attack him. Marina is held up as an example

7 7
on how grace can be victorious over the enemy.

Marina finds a bronze hammer (rj(j>0pav xaAKfjv) in the cell and she beats

the Devil. Methodios inserts a comment in the margin on the phrase "finds

a bronze hammer". The future Patriarch clarifies the symbolism of the

hammer. It represents the help provided by the grace of God. The

7 4
Ibid., p . 25, lines 21 - 2 5 .
7 5
Ibid., p p . 26 - 27: "...cri 8E otuTfjg Tioirjoaaai TO ar]\ieiov TOO dyiou Xpiorou,
TTpoTOpEuadnEvoi; EVPPOOOEV KopriQ ouTwg bi£ppr\£,ev Td EvSdoGia auTou. Kai OUTWC;
K a T a i T E a w v d u o TOU T E T p a y u v o u 4><5<f)ov |i£yav K a i 5i£axCa6r| KOTO JIE'OOV K a i dTT£'9av£v.
ETTOI'TIOE
Be dyi'a K d p r i E^fjA0EV EK T f j g KoiMac; OUTOO \ir\bev d5iKr|0Elaa."
7 6
Ibid., p . 29, line 8.
7 7 l T 0 l
Ibid., p . 50: " . . . i ^ d y i a 5id T f j q x ^ P 3 viKiDaa TOV Ex0p[ov] vor|T<3c;..."

277
experience of Marina and her help from G o d is c o m p a r e d with the true

7 8
e x p e r i e n c e s of St. J u l i a n n a .

T h e r e is a curious o c c u r r e n c e in the next four notations by Methodios a s

catalogued by U s e n e r . T h e y appear out of s e q u e n c e with the story.

S c h o l i a vi - x actually refer to p a s s a g e s before the o n e s cited above. In

notes number vi, Methodios e x p a n d s on the words " f\ bi Ke<j>ccAii." He

states that the governance of evil c o m e s from the h e a d and a defeat of

fantasies provides restoration, by bringing o n e ' s imaginings back down to

7 9
earth. T h e next notation by Methodios refers to p. 27, line 2 of the Vita.

T h e word Methodios singles out for comment is " e'Spauov" [running]. By

running, the d e m o n s hurry to the nest of their chief, the Devil, to agitate him

so that he swallows human s o u l s . T h e comment of Methodios in scholia ix

refers back to page 27, line 13. T h e phrase Methodios centers upon is "r|

be dyi'a Kopt], (This holy m a i d e n ) " . He concentrates his attention on the

protection afforded Marina by the sign of the C r o s s . G r a c e b e c a m e evident

in the failing of the dragon. T h e fierce battle is w a g e d between the Devil,

with his d e m o n s , and Marina. T h e prize for the Devil is the saint's soul.

D e m o n s in the guise of dogs bark and growl at Marina, attempting to

distract her s o that s h e is vulnerable to the Devil's attacks. Methodios s e e s

8 0
Marina's victory a s an example of G o d ' s g r a c e . S c h o l i a x p r e s e n t s an

The notation given to identify this saint, s h e is also incarcerated and the Devil appears to her.
Cited in Symeon Mag., P G , vol. cxiv, col. 1444 d.
7 9
Methodios of Constantinople, "ZXOAIA A n E P EIZ T O MAPTYPION T H E A T I A Z MAPINHZ", p.
51 ref. p. 26, line 1.
8 0
Methodios of Constantinople, "ZXOAIA A n E P EIZ TO MAPTYPION THZ A T I A Z MAPINHZ", p.
51, scholia ix.

278
interesting s c e n a r i o . O n c e again, Marina a n s w e r s the onslaught of the

Devil by prayer. In this commentary Methodios returns to the theme of

scholia viii posing alternatives concerning the p h r a s e "TETpdywvov T O E K

TEaadpwv". O n the face of this e x p r e s s i o n , one c a n look only at the four

corners of the cell, but by referring to Revelations 20, 7 and 8 one finds that

there is a d e e p e r theological meaning relating to the dragon of The

Apocalypse. If this is considered in relationship to Marina's struggle, the

universal battle against the forces of evil and the forces of good, the dragon

"will c o m e out to deceive the nations that are at the four corners of the

8 1
earth". In his scholia, Methodios d o e s not a n s w e r t h e s e questions; he

only presents a variety of alternatives for contemplation.

Scholia xiii " E K TOU CTKOTEIVOU" refers to page 32, line 2 3 of the Vita.

Marina is e n g a g e d in a conversation with the man in her cell. He s p e a k s to

her from the d a r k n e s s and d e c l a r e s his name to be S a t a n . Methodios

8 2
s p e a k s of the fall of Lucifer from a place of brightness to that of d a r k n e s s

and d i s c l o s e s that S a t a n is never truthful; he is in fact "the father of lies".

The commentary p r o c e e d s in scholia 15, by referencing page 34, line 29.

Methodios continues the remarks he began in scholia 14. T h i s dialogue

between S a t a n and Marina intrigued Methodios. He h a s four s e p a r a t e

marginal notations within a few lines. In scholia 14, Methodios calls

attention to the word "soul". Now, in number 15, " K C U TTGC," is the point of

departure for Methodios. He a n s w e r s S a t a n ' s question to Marina

Rev. 20, 7-8.

Isaiah 14, 12 ff.

279
concerning the origin of the soul in the human being. The churchman

quotes G e n e s i s 2, 7 to establish that the soul of man h a s its s o u r c e in

8 3
God. He inserted next scholia adjacent to the p h r a s e "KCCI V G V " on line 37

of the s a m e page. T h e text elicites this note from Methodios, a s he refers

to the Life of St. Antonios. He underlines the lesson given by St. Antonios

8 4
that Christians should not believe the Devil e v e n when he s p e a k s t r u t h s .

At the end of the scholia, Methodios provides a direct l e s s o n about the

images and their u s e in the C h u r c h to supplement the written word. In the

body of the Acta, the dying Marina s a y s that "writings" will tell the stories of

8 5
the ascetic struggles of the saints. Methodios a d d s in scholia xvii "That it

is an ancient custom of iconographically adorning the c h u r c h e s with the

most wonderful Divine E c o n o m y and with the ascetic struggles of the

8 6
renowned saints". T h i s comment h a r k e n s us back to the lesson

presented by St. Basil and quoted by Methodios in s e v e r a l other works.

T h e maxim s t r e s s e s the iconodulic concept that iconography, theology in

colour, is a part of the ancient tradition of the C h u r c h on par with

"logography", theology by the written word. Methodios then skips to

comment on the last moments of Marina's life. S h e h a s endured much

8 d
Methodios of Constantinople, "SXOAIA AI1EP E I I T O MAPTYPION T H E A T I A Z MAPINHZ", p.
52, scholia xv lines 19 - 21: "Kctl Ev<t>u0r|O£v E { Q aiVrov " 6 Bedg (Sfj^ov 5' O T I tig T O V
(itvBpamov) "trvE0|ia ^wfjg", £iTa"Kai £y£veTO 6 dvGpamoQ ei<; <|>uxiiv ^(3aav."
8 4
Athanasius (1980) The Life of Anthony and the Letter to Marcellinus, trans. R. Gregg (Paulist
Press), New York, Ramsey, Toronto (The C l a s s i c s of Western Spirituality), p. 51.
8 5
Methodios of Constantinople, "XXOAIA AI1EP E I I T O MAPTYPION T H I A T I A E MAPINHX", p.
42 [folio 140].
8 6
Ibid., pp. 52 - 53, lines 27 - 28 and lines 1 - 2: "... O T I irotAaiov E(Kovoypa<|>ETa9ai i&c,
^KKArioiai; auv TOTQ Tfjc; Befog oiKovoniag uTT£p<j>u£aiv fpyoig' O U T W 5r| xai T O U £na)vu|iou dyiou
aGAnaiv."

280
suffering and pain. Miraculously s a v e d from boiling water, Marina did not

experience the heat of the water, another earthquake frees her bonds and

s h e baptises herself in the Name of the Trinity. T h e ruler then orders

8 7
Marina decapitated. T h e last three notations by Methodios relate to

Marina's translation and her virginal martyrdom. S c h o l i a xviii quotes St.

Basil saying that the commemoration of the saints provides miraculous

c u r e s and that their relics demonstrate the p r e s e n c e of G r a c e in that

88
saint.

After Marina is b e h e a d e d , twelve angels surround her and bear her h e a d to

8 9
the throne of G o d , chanting hymns. It is at this point that Methodios

enters another notation, number xix. Methodios cites the work of St.

Dionysios the Areopagite, The Celestial Hierarchy, about the activity of the

9 0
ranks of angels. T h e Vita informs us that b e c a u s e of her purity Marina

w a s borne to this level of direct communion with G o d .

Methodii ad Theodorum in vitam et reliquias sancti Nicolai Myrensis

9 1
This work of Methodios is found in a definitive study written by Anrich.

T h e original composition w a s written at the behest of a certain T h e o d o r e .

8 7
Ibid., p. 40, line 34.
88 Ibid., p. 53, scholia xviii, a s cited in St Basil's Epistle no. 238.
8 9
Ibid., pp. 4 5 - 4 6 .
9 0
Pseudo - Dionysius the Areopagite, Pseudo • Dionysius - The Complete Works., de cael. Hier,
Chapter 7, part 2, pp. 162 - 164.
9 1
Methodios of Constantinople (unknown),"Methodii ad Theodorum in vitam at reliquitas Nicolai
Myrensis," in Hagios Nikolaos der Heilige Nikolaos in der Griechischen Kirche, vol. I ed. G. Anrich
(B. G . Teubner), Leipzig - Berlin (1913), pp. 140 - 150.

281
We read a s Methodios refers to Theodore a s "...w dvSpwv dpicrr£ Kai

9 2
TT£pi(()av£aTaT£ 0 £ d 5 w p £ . . . " Therefore we c a n a s s u m e that he is a highly

placed person within Constantinopolitan society. T h i s opinion parallels that

of Professor S e v c e n k o , who s a y s the following:

He addressed Theodore, a rich man and a

gourmet, a s periphanestatose, "His E m i n e n c e . " I

imagine Theodore to have been some court

personality, and Methodios to h a v e been out of

prison and residing at Theophilos' court and

9 3
satisfying T h e o d o r e ' s curiosity about N i c h o l a s . . .

The question, "When was this piece written?", has already been

commented upon in the above quote. W e know from the attribution that

9 4
Methodios w a s a priest and an Abbot, "TTpEafkmpou K O U n y o u ^ E v o u , " but

not yet patriarch. In the quotation above, S e v c e n k o p r o p o s e s that this work

may have b e e n written while Methodios w a s residing in Theophilos' court,

that is, after his imprisonment. T h e r e might be yet other possible periods in

Methodios' life, which he could have written this work, that is, during the

time of his imprisonment or even just before his incarcerations. What we do

know is that the chronology is not only ambiguous; but that it will probably

remain s o considering the present e v i d e n c e . T h i s work featuring highlights

from the life of St. Nicholas includes s o m e of the better known events in the

Saint's life. T h e remarkable discovery concerning t h e s e two compositions

9 2
Ibid., p. 140, line 6: "O most excellent man and most notable Theodore."
9 3
Sevcenko, "Hagiography of the Iconoclastic Period", p. 126.
9 4
Methodios of Constantinople, Methodii ad Theodorum in vitam at reliquitas Nicolai Myrensis",
p. 140 attribution.

282
is not in their content, but quite the contrary, in what they do not contain.

This short life of St. Nicholas and the encomion, which is a s s o c i a t e d with it,

do not carry within their texts any reference to i m a g e s or to the great

conflict between iconoclasts and iconodules; in fact, there is a striking lack

of theology or polemic in either work. Methodios calls to mind the Saint's

life, his holiness and the miracles a s s o c i a t e d with Nicholas.

T h e writing style is Methodian even though, he promises T h e o d o r e at the

9 5
beginning of the treatise that he will be simple and straightforward. There

is the habitual u s e of biblical allusions and l e s s o n s . Quotations from the

Synoptic G o s p e l s , the Epistles of St. Paul, the Psalter, the books of

G e n e s i s , J o b , Kings and Leviticus pepper the ten p a g e s of the work.

Methodios begins his account of Nicholas' early life by describing the

"miraculous" characteristics of his birth and the b l e s s e d nature of his

childhood. Nicholas w a s born without pain and afterwards his mother

9 6
remained barren a s signs that Nicholas w a s indeed a s p e c i a l c h i l d . Even

from birth and infancy, it w a s apparent to all that Nicholas w a s a child of

The work discusses two miracles that demonstrate the generosity,

c o m p a s s i o n and holiness of the man of G o d , Nicholas. T h e first account

relates the dire situation of three sisters from a formerly wealthy family

about to be forced into a life of prostitution, b e c a u s e their father had

9 5
Ibid., p. 140, Chapter 1, lines 6 - 8 .
9 6
Ibid., p. 143, lines 16 - 2 0 : " . . T O d^ioTrpenfi tmep l^Aiicfav xap(o|iotTa..."
9 7
Ibid., p. 143, lines 21.

283
squandered their dowries. Through the mercy, generosity and Christian

love of the saintly Nicholas, their dowries were provided secretly in the form

of s a c k s of gold left for e a c h of the girls separately. Methodios quotes two

scriptural p a s s a g e s to characterise this act of charity by Nicholas. T h e first

p a s s a g e is "Thou shall love thy neighbour a s thyself" and the s e c o n d

p a s s a g e he cites is, "When you give alms let not your left hand know what

9 8
your right hand is doing." Methodios s t r e s s e s the fact that Nicholas w a s

intent on being merciful, but his philanthropy, which s h o n e from G o d , w a s

9 9
hidden from human e y e s . Through St. Nicholas, t h e s e young girls were

1 0 0
s a v e d from lives of s i n .

P e r h a p s one of the most "Methodian" s e g m e n t s of the essay is the

description of the elevation of Nicholas to the episcopal throne of Myra.

T h e sitting bishop had died and the other hierarchs gathered to elect a new

chief pastor. While the bishops were in council, the eldest bishop heard a

voice that c o m m a n d e d him to proceed to the doors of the church that night.

T h e r e he w a s instructed that he would find a man n a m e d Nicholas. This

1 0 1
man was G o d ' s choice to be the new shepherd of G o d ' s flock.

Methodios c o m p a r e s the grace bestowed on Nicholas by this supernatural

choosing of him to fill the vacant throne with the story of David's anointing.

He u s e s the biblical account of the anointing of David by S a m u e l to bear

9 8
Ibid., p. 144, lines 31 - 33, Lev. 19, 18 also Math. 22, 39; and Math. 6, 3.
9 9
Ibid., p. 145, lines 2 - 3 : " . . T O U T W ESE(KVU -rr|v Swpedv Kpu^iwTOTa' K a i ty<n6c, TOO GEOO
£M<X(ll|j£((; T O (|>lAdv0p(i)TTOV..."
1 0 0
Ibid., pp. 144 - 146, Chapters 9 - 14.
1 0 1
Ibid., 146, chapter 15, lines 2 8 - 3 1 : « A T T E X 0 E d g T I ^ V EKKXtiai'av V U K T O Q Kai oTfjBi npoi;
V

<TC< TiponuAaia' Kai oq npo T T O V T U V U T T E I O E A G E T V T I ^ V £KKAr|a(av E A E U O E T O I , T O U T O KpaT^aavTEc;

eic; T I I V EiuaKonriv Trpox£iptaaa0£- NiKdAaog Q O T I ? E O T I V T O 6vo\ia.»

284
 1 0 2
the Spirit of the Lord and to be the future king of Israel. Methodios

states that this miraculous s e a l of grace confirmed Nicholas a s the

103
bishop.

T h e s e c o n d miracle, which Methodios highlights, is the s a v i n g of a group of

sailors from a storm. T h e y called on the name of Bishop Nicholas, of whom

they had only heard. By the help of the saint, they returned safely to dry

1 0 4
land. At that point, the sailors rushed to thank the bishop. W h e n they

encountered him, Nicholas discerned that the three s e a m e n were captive of

the sin of fornication. Like a loving father, he s p o k e gently to them and

1 0 5
sought to correct them spiritually.

T h e other section that is characteristically Methodian in style is a portion

towards the end of the work. Methodios is praising and acclaiming the

virtues of Nicholas, and he a c c o m p l i s h e s this through a series of

anaphorae, indicative of his c o m m a n d of rhetoric.

I Kings 16, 13 (LXX): "...and Samuel took the horn of oil, and anointed him in the midst of his
brethren: and the Spirit of the Lord came upon David from that day forward."
1 0 3
Methodios of Constantinople, "Methodii ad Theodorum in vitam at reliquitas Nicolai Myrensis",

page 148, chapter 18 lines 3 - 5 .

1 0 4
Ibid., pp. 1 4 8 - 1 4 9 , Chapters 19, lines 1 5 - 2 4 .
1 0 5
Ibid., p. 148, chapter 20, lines 34 - 36; p. 149, lines 1 - 5 lines: « T V U T E E O U T O U I ; , dbeXtyoi,
napaKctAw, Kai T 6 V p(ov E U G U V O T E ' yap auvrpofyoQ iljnv Kai d6iK(a Kai T O irAEovEKTiKWTaTov,
liETd Tijc; nuaapfii; Tropv£(a<; EmnuAd^ouoai, T O O ((iiAavGpajnou 0 E O U T I I V T I E I S E I O V , oiq (crrpouc; ai
vdooi, EKKaAoOvTai Kai £Tra<|>ifiaiv dvayKaiOTaTa. \iEia\idQeje ouv T O K O A O V Kai T O V dyiaa|idv
w T < a T 0 V
iyKojiPwaaaOE, ou x P k *X Kopiov O U 6 E ( < ; dtyETai, Kai E ^ O I T E E V £auTo!<; £K T W V Tfjg
dpETfjg aiTEpudTWv dnu|i£va irAouafwi; Tfjg awT^piag T O SpdyjiaTa. »

285
 ...(ieyav NIKOACCOV ?x£...---TTpdc; (|>iAiav GEOO

ElKdva diTapaxapavKTOv, npo^ FyBpav Saindvwv

F i a v
EvaTTiAwpa dvETUKAiTOv, npoq x P TTEVTITWV

XapctKTfjpa, TTpdq £;fjAov 8oypdTwv Kavdva

1 0 6
EU0UTCCTOV...

Methodios returns to u s e this device 2 3 times in only 16 lines of text. He

then e n d s his work b e s e e c h i n g for the saint's intercessory prayers.

Encomion in Sanctum Nikolaum

1 0 7
T h e encomion is found in the previously noted monograph by Anrich.

This composition is attributed to Patriarch Methodios in s e v e r a l mss

traditions. T h i s writing is, a s the n a m e identifies, a work in praise of St.

Nicholas. T h i s work, in contrast to the previous one, b e a r s the attribution of

Methodios a s Archbishop of Constantinople. A s w a s mentioned earlier,

very little within this piece refers directly to the struggle with the iconoclast

or if the attribution is to be believed, there is no declaration of victory and

triumph over the heretics that one would expect in a work written during

1
Methodios patriarchal y e a r s .

0 8
Ibid., pp. 149 - 150, Chapter 22 - 23, lines 22 - line 3: "...great Nicholas you gush forth
...the genuine image of God's love, to the demon enemy, the devil, the unforgettable fortress, to the
poor in need the image of the archetype, to the dogmatic zeal, the most straight canon."
1 0 7
Methodios of Constantinople (n.d.) "EITCQMION E I I TON A H O N N I K O A A O N TON EN
MYPOIZ T H E A Y K I A Z " , in Hagios Nikolaos der Heilige Nikolaos in der Griechischen Kirche, vol. I
ed. G . Anrich (B. G . Teubner), Leipzig - Berlin (1913), pp. 153 - 182.

286
T h e text d o e s contain a concentration and various distributions of biblical

references, a s h a v e been found in other Methodian compositions. An

examination of the 28 p a g e s revealed 32 direct scriptural quotes in the

work. O n c e again, Methodios u s e s a large number and variety of scriptural

p a s s a g e s to draw his allusions and to demonstrate the l e s s o n s he w i s h e s

to insert.

Within this particular opus dedicated to St. Nicholas, Methodios writes

about two of the s a m e miracles that were d i s c u s s e d in the vitam et

reliquias, one of t h e s e being the account of the three young sisters s a v e d

from prostitution through the saint's intervention. T h e other incident is the

account of the protection of the sailors, being brought safely to land from an

angry s e a by the calling on the Bishop for aid. Nicholas a p p e a r s on their

boat and prays, and they are then s a v e d . T h e r e h a s been added in this

encomion additional evidence of the sanctity of Bishop Nicholas. T h e r e is

an episode relating of the salvation of s o m e military men from execution

b e c a u s e of the saint's c o n c e r n . T h r e e c o m m a n d e r s , Nepotian, U r s u s and

Herpylion were dispatched from Constantinople to the D i o c e s e of L y s i a to

quell a civil disturbance; b e c a u s e of weather they remained in the harbour

108
town. Soldiers under their c o m m a n d treated the local people harshly; St.

Nicholas intervened by admonishing the commanders. The officers

1 0 9
punished the offending soldiers and harmony w a s restored. Additionally,

there are chronicled s e v e r a l miracles brought about by seeking the

Ibid., p. 162, Chapters 19, lines 6 - 1 1 .

Ibid., p. 162, Chapter 20, lines 1 2 - 1 7 .

287
intercession of Nicholas, after he had fallen a s l e e p in the Lord. Methodios

reports three separate e x p e r i e n c e s through which the g r a c e and holiness of

Nicholas are demonstrated. T h e s e events involve the intervention of the

1 1 0
saint in the lives of religious men; the first is of a priest n a m e d J o h n .

1 1 1
S e c o n d , a certain presbyter of Mytiline is aided by the saint's c a r e . The

third and last cited is the account of the help given to a certain monk -

1 1 2
scholar n a m e d Peter. E a c h of the e p i s o d e s s h o w s the love, caring and

miraculous intervention of the prayers of Nicholas upon those who s e e k his

help in faith and with hope.

E v e n though the encomion is without reference to the iconoclastic struggle,

it is not devoid of any theological and dogmatic affirmations. The heresy

which is singularly c o n d e m n e d , is Arianism. Methodios d i s c u s s e s this early

threat to orthodox Christianity by praising Nicholas for keeping his d i o c e s e

1 1 3
pure in light of the pervasive h e r e s y . Methodios then expounds the

Orthodox teaching of the Trinity. He distinguishes the o n e n e s s of the

e s s e n c e , the discernibility of the P e r s o n s of the Holy Trinity and the c o -

equality of the Trinitarian G o d . T h e Nicene formulation is upheld, while

1 1 4
Arianism and Sabellianism, which c o n f u s e the distinction between the

P e r s o n s of the Trinity, are c o n d e m n e d . T h e unity and the o n e n e s s of the

1 1 0
Ibid., pp. 1 6 9 - 1 7 1 , Chapters 3 6 - 4 0 .
1 1 1
Ibid., pp. 171 - 174, Chapters 4 2 - 4 5 .
1 1 2
Ibid., pp. 1 7 4 - 1 8 0 , Chapters 4 7 - 5 7 .
1 1 3
Ibid., p. 160, Chapter 15, lines 6 - 7 : "...jidvr) T<3V Miipuv \ir\jpo-noMc, raic, TOO dy(ou
TOUTOU 5i5aoKaA(ai<; T T I V T C I U T T I V ou6e i r p o a r | K a T o . . . "
1 1 4
C r o s s and Livingstone (eds.), The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, p. 1218.

288
 1 1 5
Divine Trinitarian G o d h e a d are declared and heralded. Notwithstanding

that within this section strict orthodoxy is defended, the direct relevance to

the conflicts of the eight and ninth centuries are not observable.

T h e last feature of this work to be inspected is the routine u s e by Methodios

of a s e r i e s of compound statements to intensify his meaning. In this

instance, the concluding portion of the encomion a c c e n t u a t e s the qualities

and gifts of Nicholas. Methodios utilises a string of a n a p h o r a e e a c h

beginning with either idic, £v or Toug EV. T h i s device is u s e d about ten

1 1 6
times in nine lines of t e x t . E x a m p l e s of this u s a g e are a s follows:

...7o1q £v <|)uAaKai<; £moK£Tn6\ievo<;- ...Toog rv

vdaoiq iw|i£voc;, louq EV auu^opalg

a O V 0
TTapa|iu0ou^£vo<;, TOIC; iy. x P^ ^^
117
auv£uwxou|i£vo(;,...

It is apparent St. Nicholas held great appeal to our ninth-century

churchman. A s will be subsquently s h o w n , Nicholas is yet the subject of a

C a n o n by Methodios.

1 1 5
Methodios of Constantinople ( n . d . ) " E r K n M I O N E E T O N A T I O N N I K O A A O N T O N E N M Y P O I X
T H E A Y K I A Z " , p. 160, Chapter 15, lines 11 - 2 1 : " . . . n i d g ydp <|)ua£(i)g T O Tpi'a Kai nidi; oi3a(ai;
ETTiyivdiaKouaa, tao8uvana TaOTa Kai [ad9ea navTayoO S I E K T I P U K E U E T O , OI3TE T O Tpi'a elq ev
auvaAe(<|>ouaa Kai auyxe'ouoa, oihe T O E V EIQ Tpfa SiaipoOaa dAAd<t>uAa, dAAd Kai T p ( a KaA<3<;
SiaipoOaa - npoawtroiq ydp - Kai T O ev Eiiae^iSq <|>uAdTTouaa 9edTr|Ti ydp —, Kai O U T E T<$ evi
aaPeAAi^ouaa, ouTe ToTq T p i a i v d p e i a v ^ o u a a ' E V ydp £v T p i a i v f) 9eoTr|<;, Kai T O Tpi'a E V o'iq,
•f\ 9 E O T I I 5 , i{ (idAAov eiireTv d r^ 9eoTr|q. . . . "
1 1 6
Ibid., p. 182, Chapter 60 lines 1 - 10.
1 1 7
Ibid., p. 182, Chapter 60 lines 2 - 5 : "...visiting those in prisons, healing the infirmed,
consoling those in distress [calamity], celebrating together with the joyful..."

289
 The Vitae

T h e next two works by Methodios are a different category of hagiography

than the o n e s previously d i s c u s s e d . T h e s e works are Vitae, which are

highly stylised biographies of holy men and w o m e n . In the Methodian

corpus, there w a s only one established vita until relatively recently. The

work is the Vita of St. Theophanes the Confessor. After this review, our

attention will turn to the s e c o n d vita, which w a s identified in the 1960's a s a

probable work of Methodios by Professor J e a n Gouillard. T h e Vita of St.

Euthymios of Sardis confirmed Gouillard's supposition with the publication

1 1 8
of his critical text of this work in 1987.

Vita of St. Theophanes the Confessor

This opus h a s been preserved in the codex Mosquensis Synod. No. 390

(Vladimir). Bibliographic references to it c a n be found in K r u m b a c h e r

(1897) and Spiridonov (1913). T h e critical text and the one that will be

1 1 9
utilised in this a n a l y s i s is the R u s s i a n study.

In determining the chronology of this work, we know that it could not have

been written before March 822, the burial of the saint's body at his

1 2 0
Monastery of Agros, b e c a u s e this event is described in the last few

1 1 8
Gouillard, " L a Vie D'Euthyme De Sardes (+831) une oeuvre du patriarche Methode".
1 1 9
Latysev, B. (1918), Methodii, patriarchae Constantinopolitani, Vita S. Theophanis confessoris
e codice Mosquensi no. 159 edidit, M4moires de l'Acad6mie des Sciences de Russie series viii,
T O M O S xiii, pp. i + 120.
1 2 0
Theophanes the Confessor, The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor, Introduction pp. I - li.

290
 1 2 1
p a g e s of the Vita. Professor Sevfcenko d a t e s t h e s e two works in this

manner:

E v e n though many iconodule Lives dealing with

s e c o n d Iconoclasm were written within the ninth

century, the number of those dating from before

8 4 3 is s o small, that they c a n be listed there. The

original Vita of Euthymios of Sardis by the future

Patriarch Methodios dates from early 832. This

Life w a s p r e c e d e d in time by that of T h e o p h a n e s

the C o n f e s s o r (d. 818), by the s a m e author; thus

the Life of T h e o p h a n e s may conceivably fall in the

1 2 2
time of Michael II.

W e c a n then place this composition at a time when Methodios had returned

to Constantinople shortly after his stay in R o m e . T h e end of the story is

hardly an appropriate point to begin an a s s a y of any work, the Vita of

Theophanes included. Methodios undertakes to laud and to present to his

readers a portrait of a holy and c o u r a g e o u s champion of the struggle to

defend i m a g e s . W e identify Methodios' rhetorical style from the outset;

1 2 3
T h e o p h a n e s is d e s c r i b e d in t h e s e words " 0£O(|>dv£i rQ e£o<j>av£crrdTu>.

He is presented a s being the s o n from a noble Christian home, who is born

"almost" miraculously due to the a d v a n c e d age of his parents. T h e biblical

1 2 1
LatySev, Methodii, patriarchae Constantinopolitani, Vita S. Theophanis confessoris, p. 38,
Chapter 58, lines 23 - 27: "...jiETd TroAAfjg fiiaq, <bq bt Kai 6d^r|Q Kiipwv T E Kai GumajidTwv Kai
i|jaAnty5(a(; KUK^OTEpwq T O O TrAtjGoug E^dpxovTog, nETfjpav auTdv eiq JJ\V trap' ad-roO K T I O G E T C T O V
T
Hovi^v T o v A y p o v ErriA£yo(i£VT]v Kai K O T E ' G E V T O £ V T<5 (JVTIHEIUI bf o5Ko8d(ir)aav upoq TijJ S E ^ I I J
v

^ipei Tfjc; £KKAr|a(a<;, E V <} Kai i^dAAuv vuKTEptvalg TaTg u p a i q EKdGriTo." Janin, Les 6glises et
les monasteres des grands centres Byzantins, p. 195.
1 2 2
Sevcenko, "Hagiography of the Iconoclastic Period", p. 118. Michael II reigned 820 - 829.
, 2 3
Latysev, Methodii, patriarchae Constantinopolitani, Vita S. Theophanis confessoris, p. 2,
Chapter 3, line 28.

291
 1 2 4
model of A b r a h a m and S a r a h is cited a s the image of G o d ' s blessings.

1 2 5
His mother and father were n a m e d Isaakios and Theodote. His father

was a high official in the administration of the iconoclast E m p e r o r

Constantine V. During his youth, T h e o p h a n e s is d e s c r i b e d a s being

spirited and athletic. He enjoyed the outdoor activities of hunting and

horseback riding, which according to Methodios helped to quell the

p a s s i o n s of youth. O n c e again, Methodios p r e s e n t s a saint grappling,

1 2 6
much like himself, with the fire of physical p a s s i o n s . Soon these

p a s s i o n s of the flesh were s u p e r s e d e d in T h e o p h a n e s , by the love of G o d

and a desire to e m b r a c e the monastic way. T h e path to this life w a s

blocked an arranged marriage of his mother's making. After the p a s s i n g

a w a y of his mother, there emerged a battle of wills between his desire to

enter the monastery; and his wife's family that wanted him to fulfill his

marital obligations. The Emperor L e o IV, b e c a u s e of the urging of

T h e o p h a n e s ' in-laws, threatened to blind the young T h e o p h a n e s if he

1 2 7
pursued his desire to b e c o m e a monk. T o deter T h e o p h a n e s , L e o sent

him on an imperial mission to construct a "Kdcrrpov" at K y z i k o s . Methodios

speaks plainly in describing L e o a s a Nestorian heretic and impious

128
despot. In the next chapter, T h e o p h a n e s stopped on his way to Kyzikos

1 2 4
Ibid., p. 3 , S e e G e n . 1 7 , 1 8 ff (LXX).
1 2 5
Ibid., p. 3 , Chapter 3 , line 7 .
1 2 6
Ibid., p. 5, Chapter 6.
1 2 7
Perhaps this incident could be interpreted a s imperial hostility to the institution of monasticism.
1 2 8
LatySev, Methodii, patriarchae Constantinopolitani, Vita S. Theophanis confessoris, pp. 1 0 -
11, Chapter 1 5 , lines 2 7 - 3 0 & lines 1 - 3 : T O O T O O O V uaGuv 6 dAwn£Kd<t>p<i)v A£n>v, T O O
vtaTopiavoO $r\\ii KWVOTOVTIVOU 6 TtaTg 6 Xa^dpeioQ, S i d j i v u T a i T O 9 E T O V KpaToi; 6
SuaoEB^aTaTOQ £KKdi|iai T O O v £ a v ( a Td d | i | i a T a , E ! T O U T O pouAiiBEiri Siompd^aoGar T T P O O E T I V E
\ir\v Kai EKupoq 6 T O U T O auvsipyEi Tfl T O O Tupdvvou PouAi] Kai S I E K W A U E V TOOC, V E O U C ; T O U
E V G E O U OKOTTOO O U T W V t\ 0(3 Kai <|>uy^v ^pouAijOiiaav xp1\aaaBai I^OXOAIICTE yoOv 1^ paaiAEtuc;

292
and consulted a monk by the n a m e of Gregory on the Mount of Sigriane.

Gregory c o u n s e l e d the young T h e o p h a n e s to be patient b e c a u s e G o d will

clear the o b s t a c l e s in his path to monasticism. T h i s materialised by the

1 2 9
deaths of L e o and T h e o p h a n e s ' father-in law. W h e n t h e s e foretold

events took place, T h e o p h a n e s and his wife prepared to retire to monastic

1 3 0
life. While this is a pleasant anecdote of an event in T h e o p h a n e s ' life,

we call attention to it to reveal yet another a s p e c t concerning Methodios.

Throughout his life, Methodios put great store in prophesy, a s a gift from

G o d and a vehicle to evince truth. T h i s proclivity will be pointed out a s we

encounter it in other Methodian works, or e v e n in the e v e n t s of the future

1 3 1
patriarch's own life.

T h e next few chapters of the Vita illustrate Methodios' rhetorical style a s

well a s any p a s s a g e in the work. T h e historical c i r c u m s t a n c e , which

e v o k e s the flowering of Methodian phraseology, is the a s c e n s i o n of the

iconodulic E m p r e s s Irene and her minor son Emperor Constantine VI to the

throne, after the death of L e o IV, her h u s b a n d . T h e identical word, in

G r e e k , of the E m p r e s s ' n a m e , Eipnvri and the word for p e a c e , eiprivTi,

allows Methodios to celebrate and praise the instrument of the iconodules'

victory, the new e m p r e s s . In chapters 19 and 20, Methodios u s e s the play

on t h e s e two words or words derived from "peace" about eighty times. It

X£ip T O V BaujiaoTov avSpumov T<? Tfj<; Ku^dcou Kacrrpty auyxeipfoovTa TropEuBfjvai (f^Sri yap
TOTE ETl'^ETO)."
, 2 9
Ibid., pp. 1 1 1 2 , Chapter 16, lines 1 8 - 2 1 , the events continue throughout this Chapter.
1 3 0
Ibid., pp. 13 - 14, Chapter 19.
1 3 1
S e e events such a s , the election of Methodios, encounter with loannikios the Great, and
interaction with Euthymios in his cell.

293
would be too lengthy to reproduce the entire two chapters at this point, but

the following few lines should act as an example of the technique, which

Methodios utilises so effectively to make his case:

r
Kcti r\v dpijvri £U(j>ti[ia)q ETTI Fiprivr| auTOKpcrropi

a v T 0 T a V T
Eipqvf.uouaq Kai rfP^ £0 1 <t>pov£iv

£ipqvr)v, fipr]viK(?)q F.ip^vF.uavTa, K a i TTpd £0v<3v

fjpavTO £({>' £OUTOU<; Kai dMr|AouQ gipqvTyv oi

XpiaTiavi^ovTeg...

While celebrating the accomplishments of the iconodulic Empress, the

future patriarch adds this to the account of her achievements:

1 3 3
"KcrrecnrdAiaev -roug vaoug Kai KOTaTToiKiAev iKK^riaiaq r\ Eipj^vj}..."

By complimenting the Empress, that her largess was being used to the

great work of adorning God's churches, Methodios subtly contrasted Irene

with her iconoclastic predecessors, who had destroyed the images in the

Holy Churches. The next chapter coincidentally relates the account of the

taking up of the habit by Megalo, Theophanes" wife, who assumes the

1 3 4
monastic name Irene. The narrative continues describing the life of the

saint. In chapter 27, Methodios relates the events of the Seventh

Ecumenical Council, Nicaea II and Theophanes' active role in the

proceedings. As an admiring biographer, Methodios commends

Theophanes for his wisdom, his spiritual insight as well as his virtues, which

LatySev, Methodii, patriarchae Constantinopolitani, Vita S. Theophanis confessoris, pp. 13 -

14, Chapter 19, line 32 - Chapter 20, lines 1 - 3.
1 3 3
Ibid., p. 14, Chapter 19, lines 25 - 26: "...and she re-adorned temples and embellished
churches of peace..."
1 3 4
Ibid., p. 15, line 25.

294
are universally recognised and appreciated by all those in attendance at the

council

... he offered at Nicaea straightforward dogma and

135
the hightest gift of humble G r a c e .

Methodios illustrates the character and Christian strengths of Theophanes

during his peaceful years in the monastery. As the years pass, Methodios,

the commentator, makes a point to editorialise regarding the imperial

personalities. With Irene's passing from the scene, Nikephoros I (802 -

811) became the new emperor. Methodios is effusive with his praise of

Nikephoros.

...from the time of Irene, the lover of Christ, there

followed Nikephoros, the most prudent and
ultraorthodox, free thinking, servant of God, the
most faithful and piously worthy, with unbiased
judgement and a truthful logic in his decision-
136
making...

A few passages later, Methodios praises two subsequent iconodulic

emperors. Staurakios, who only ruled a few months in 811, and Michael I

Rangabe (811 - 813) were both heralded for their many virtues, their

wisdom and their admirable Christian traits. Staurakios is described as

Ibid., p. 19, Chapter 27, lines 2 and 3: "...npoEioEv^yKag Tij KOTO Nftcaaiv TQSV SoypictTwv
a l O T , l o v
t9uTriTi K a l TO rflg Tan£ivo<t)poouvriQ x P 1P Swpina. "
1 3 6
Ibid., p. 26, Chapter 41, lines 7 - 1 1 : "... EUCTEPOUVTWV K a i TWV Kaipuiv And Etpiivrn; Tfjg
<t>iAoxp(cJTOu K a i Eiri NiKT|<|>dpov TOV <)>povipu>TaT6v TE K a i iravop9oSot;ov, TOV E^EoQEpoyvwpova
Kai GEOSOUAOV, TOV EuaEponpEixfi K a i maTOTaTo, TOV dvEmyvwoTov TTpoaunoii; £v xpiaei
dSid^EUOTOv voii(iaaiv £v t|jTj(|>u)."

295
 1 3 7
being wise beyond his young years and of an agreeable youthful nature.

Michael, named after the Archangel, is characterised as bearing a light of

138
goodness.

Chapter 45 demonstrates three characteristics of Methodian writing style.

First, his comprehensive knowledge of scripture, which has been noted in

other works, is apparent in this composition. In this chapter alone,

Methodios quotes from the books of Romans, John, Daniel and the
139
Psalms. The second aspect, which this chapter demonstrates, is

Methodios' tendency to vilify the iconoclastic emperors wherever he is able.

This is accomplished within this chapter by the use of the third literary

mechanism, which Methodios is fond of using, alliteration and a play-on-

words. In this example, Leo V (813 - 820) is the object of Methodios'

derision.

Leo, the twice lion-like and his dreadful monstrous

140
claws...

The scene quickly shifts to centre on the ordeals that Theophanes

undergoes at the hands of Leo and his agent. Methodios makes a

statement concerning the relationship of the suffering of confessors or

1 3 7
Ibid., p. 2 6 , Chapter 4 2 , lines 2 8 - 3 0 : [LTaupchaoq]" 2v vEWTEpiKfj l^Aiidg T O <|>pdvrina K a i
\i£ya T O if\q ootyiaq K a i <t>iAo8Etag K a i ouyxwpiiaeu? E V v E a v i E u d a r j <J>UOEI."'

1 3 8
Ibid., p. 2 7 , Chapter 4 2 , line 1: "...[Mixoti^A] 6 dpxayy£Aoyva(ioc; K a i <|>£pa)vupo<; dya8dTr|Ti
UTT£p£Aamj>£V ..."
1 3 9
Ibid., p. 2 8 , Chapter 4 5 , lines 8 - 3 2 .
1 4 0
Ibid., p. 2 9 , Chapter 4 5 , 4 - 5 : "AE'WV 6 SUCTAEWV K a i A E I C U V U I V TroAuBputrra TOUC; O ' V U X C C Q . . . "

296
witnesses for the faith, which is not only true for Theophanes; but also for

Methodios and his sense of consciousness, relative to the Church:

and so then on this the compelling and unbending

141
tradition of faith is secured, by suffering...

It can be noted in Chapter 47 [mislabelled 46 in Latysev] that the antagonist

of Theophanes is the arch-iconoclast, the hated "sorcerer" and future

1 4 2
iconoclastic patriarch, John the Grammarian. The first tools used to

bend the will of Theophanes are debate and persuasion; when he is not

won over; Leo and John resort to coercion. Theophanes suffers deplorable

conditions of deprivation and cruelty, transmitting an image of Methodios'

own suffering for the faith.

...surely, because of extreme hunger, thirst,

darkness, the lack of care, and total exhaustion in
order to have the thrice-suffering [Theophanes]
143
voluntarily succumb.

Theophanes persevered, but his health was severely compromised. Shortly

1 4 4
after being exiled to Samothrace, Theophanes fell asleep in the Lord,

earning glory and the wreath of martyrdom and victory. This triumph, in

1 4 1
Ibid., p. 29, Chapter 46, lines 22 - 23: "....Etia TI^V tm TOUTO d v a y x a i a v x a i dnap^yKAiTov
Tfjg •nioicuq T f a p d S o a i v TT|pfjaai 6 i E ( i a p T i j p E T o . . . "
1 4 2
Ibid., p. 30, Chapter 47, lines 15 - 16: " T a u T a a x o u o a ? 6 d5iKUTaTog TrapeSuKEv 'Iwdvvri T«V
(layojidvTEi T O V 8 a i o v . . . "
1 4 3 T
Ibid., p. 30, Chapter 47, lines 27 - 29: "... rrv y d p TroAAoOg u><; <5VTU>Q u n o m ^ u v Aim? KCU
5 ( ^ E I K a i O K O T W Kcrt TT) Xoitifj <5Mywp(a Kcti KcrraOTEvdiv K a i KOTaTpiixwv tic, £0£Aon£(6Eiav 6
Tpicd^^."
1 4 4
S e e figure 6: Map of the Balkan Peninsula.

297
Christ, is extolled over several pages of the Vita using biblical imagery and

metaphors. Methodios then provides a powerfully opposing spectre using

the death of Leo as a model. He quotes the passages in Isaiah 14, which

deals with the fall of Lucifer, from a position of honour to the depths of

Hades and employs this representation to deride Leo and by comparison to

1 4 5
lift up Theophanes. This imagery reflects the scholia of Marina where

Methodios also cited the descent of Lucifer from a place of brightness to

one of darkness. After describing the translation of the remains of the

saint, the many miracles and cures associated with Theophanes' relics,

Methodios closes his narrative and this tale has come full circle.

The Vita of St. Euthymios of Sardis

As was noted in an earlier area of this chapter, the attribution of this work to

Methodios was not made until the 1960's. Beginning with an article of

Gouillard concerning the authorship of St. Euthymios' Vita, it was thought

1 4 6
that this compostion might be ascribed to Methodios. Finally, with the

definitive text and analysis, the work has been credited to Methodios and
1 4 7
added to his corpus. Before the work of Professor Gouillard, the only
1 4 8
known Vita of Euthymios of Sardis was a work of Metrophanes. In

LatySev, Methodii, patriarchae Constantinopolitani, Vita S. Theophanis confessoris, p. 36,

Chapters 55 and 56.
1 4 6
Gouillard, J . (1981), "Une Oeuvre Inedite Du Patriarche Methode: L a Vie D'Euthyme De
Sardes," In La Vie Religieuse A Byzance. Also to be found in BZ, vol. 53, 1960 (Variorum
Reprints), London, pp. 36 - 46.
1 4 7
Gouillard, " L a Vie D'Euthyme De Sardes (+831) une oeuvre du patriarche Methode".
1 4 8
Papadakis, A. (1970), "An Unpublished Life of Euthymius of Sardis: Bodleianus Laudianus
Graecus 69", Traditio, XXVI, pp. 63 - 89.

298
Gouillard's investigation, a different ms tradition was used as the source

document. The text is drawn from the collection of the Theological School

of Chalke (Schol. Theol. in Chace insula Agia Triatha 88 [folios 227v 252v]
1 4 9
= BH G 2145). A comparision of the work analysed by Gouillard and the

Metrophanes text by Papadakis does contain the following comment about

the content of the vitae: " ...the only other extant Life of Euthymius, which

he [Gouillard] has examined, is admittedly less verbose and contains a

1 5 0
great deal more detail [than Metrophanes' text]." The dating and

contemporary nature of Methodios' text makes it appear to be the earlier of

the two sources.

The Life of St Euthymios is significantly different from other Methodian

hagiography. The differences are germain enough to warrant some words

of introduction. Unlike other subjects about whom he wrote, Methodios

personally knew and interacted with Euthymios. Their relationship, if the

Vita is to be taken as reliable, was both long-term and close.

Notwithstanding, the episodes and many of the events were witnessed by

the younger Methodios, as Euthymios' near contemporary. In addition,

Methodios was acquainted with many of the players in Euthymios' story.

These points and others, which will be highlighted as the text is examined,

make this work a meaningful example of Methodian writing. Another

difference in this work is that Methodios wrote it as an accomplished and

recognised author of ecclesiastical writing. This can be said because in

1 4 9
Gouillard, " L a Vie D'Euthyme De Sardes (+831) une oeuvre du patriarche Methode", p. 16.
1 5 0
Papadakis, "An Unpublished Life of Euthymius of Sardis: Bodleianus Laudianus G r a e c u s 69",
p. 65.

299
one section, which will be noted, Methodios comments on his own writing

style. Furthermore, Euthymios was held in such high regard by Methodios

that in the text of the Synodicon, Euthymios' name is placed in a position of

honour, immediately after the names of the esteemed iconodulic

151
Patriarchs. The addition of this composition to the Methodian body of

work adds greatly to the insight and the understanding of the man behind
1 5 2
the pen. Because of these reasons, a significant amount of detailed

analysis will be undertaken of this work.

We ascertain from the onset by Methodios' own words that he undertakes

the biography at the urging of a "Symeon, a man of God, an angel

[messenger] of the ascetic faith". Methodios relates that he is obligated to

1 5 3
listen to such a voice. This "Symeon" can most likely be surmised to be
1 5 4
Symeon the Stylite of Lesbos. Unlike many traditional accounts of

saints' lives, this vita virtually ignores the earlier life of Euthymios. The

narrator [Methodios] explains in Chapter 2 that he recognised this fact, but

only proceeds to include a sketchy outline of Euthymios' youth and

background. The main body of the narrative begins after Euthymios has
1 5 5
been made Metropolitan of Sardis in time to be a delegate at the

1 5 1
S e e section, the Synodicon of the Sunday of Orthodoxy.
1 5 2
Gouillard, " L a Vie D'Euthyme De Sardes (+831) une oeuvre du patriarche M6thode", pp. 21 -
23 *(odd pages, only, are the Greek text).
1 5 3
Ibid., p. 21: "... fivQpwnc T O U Q E O O K a i dyyeXe T<3V TTIOTUV va^iipaiwv, euxa?
T
£TTiKaAEad(jEvoc;, w I U J I E U V , T(J (5VTI tiirctKofjg..."
1 5 4
"Life of S t s . David, Symeon and George" (n.d.) in Byzantine Defenders of Images - Eight
Saints in English Translation, ed. A. - M. Talbot, trans. D. Domingo - Foraste (Dumbarton Oaks
Research Library and Collection), Washington, pp. 142 - 241, pp. 182 - 183.
1 5 5
S e e figure 7: map of Asia Minor; his elevation must have been through the hands of
Tarrasios.

300
Seventh Ecumenical Council. Euthymios, it is noted, is a very young man

at the time of the Council, but he is described as having the wisdom of an

1 5 6
"elder". The fact that he is representing the eastern part of the empire is

emphasised during this same segment. Chapter 5 reveals the first exile of
1 5 7
Euthymios. It takes place after the revolt of Bardanes Turkos;

Euthymios is exiled by the Emperor Nikephoros I, with two other hierarchs

to the island of Pantallaria, south of Sicily. Shortly after this point,

Euthymios was allowed to return to the capital, but never allowed to return

to his see. This caused discord between the Emperor Nikephoros and the

aged Patriarch Tarasios. This "interference" by the emperor in the life and

order of the Church elicited a comment from Methodios, that the emperors'
1 5 8
action disturbed the Church and caused rancour within her. The

responsibility for order and discipline within the Church is the purview of the

Church, Her bishops and Her canons. Specifically, in this case, Patriarch

Tarasios, who was Euthymios' superior, was responsible for any

judgements concerning his see. Methodios does not allow this criticism to

be lost, even on an iconodulic emperor, to whom he has been generally

kindly disposed in past writings.

Gouillard, "La Vie D'Euthyme De S a r d e s (+831) une oeuvre du patriarche Methode", p. 23,
Chapter 3, lines 41 - 4 2 : " . . . T O T E 8i\ iSv t irpEoPirrfa <t>pevi 6 r r a v f c p o g . . . "
1 5 7
Treadgold, A History of the Byzantine State and Society, p. 425, Gouillard believes the
Metropolitan compromised himself in the rebellion. Gouillard, "Une Oeuvre In6dite Du Patriarche
Methode: L a Vie D'Euthyme De Sardes", p. 38. S e e Papadakis, "An Unpublished Life of
Euthymius of Sardis: Bodleianus Laudianus G r a e c u s 69", p. 65, cites Euthymios' confrontation with
Nikephoros' official concerning a young woman, circa 806.
1 5 8
Gouillard, "La Vie D'Euthyme De S a r d e s (+831) une oeuvre du patriarche Methode", p. 27,
Chapter 5, lines 80 - 84: T o G ydp dy(ou T a p a o i o u E u S o K r j o a v T o g \ir\bt K a T a v E u a a v r o g rfvnep
EPOUAETO TTOII^OEIV Ka6a(p£aiv, dnoKpiG^vTog be ETOIIIWC; i&q ou TO rrpooTEGflvai TOTQ
T u p a v v r j o a a i (jiEpEi ToTg ( J i r a x B E i a i xavovncr^v TTIO K a G a f p E a i v , K a i %
p a A i a G ' O T E OUX'I E K O V T E C ;
dAA' dpouAriTwc; KEKpdTrjVTOti, TIAI^V d a o v E I X E 8uvdu£<i)<; 8id (irjviSoq dirEcrrepi T W V Gpdvwv K a i
£K(j)auA(^£iv o i K E i n a G a i i ; OOK drrf'AriyEv."

301
Starting with Chapter 8, Methodios states that darkness has once again

descended upon the empire in the form of iconoclasm, instigated by Leo V.

Methodios comments that this darkness continues even as he is relating the

1 5 9
story. The next event, which Methodios communicated, is an attempt by

the new emperor to cajole Euthymios with discussions and logic to embrace

iconoclasm. When this effort failed, yet another exile of Euthymios was

ordered by Leo. The entirety of the balance of Chapter 8 is devoted to the

mockery and contempt of three iconoclastic church leaders. They are

identified as Theodotos, Antonios and John the Grammarian, the future

patriarch. They are each accused of differing personal weaknesses and

sins, ranging from drunkenness, womanising, greed and using the Church

for their own aggrandisement. Methodios remarks that Theodotos is too

160
insignificant to merit a comment.

Then Methodios discusses the unworthiness of his narrative and the

"martyrdom of composition", which he has suffered in writing this work. He

states he is cognisant of the limitations and the insufficiency of his writing to

accomplish the great task of praising Euthymios. With this passage,

Methodios identifies the difficulties that readers have in deciphering his

prose. He catalogues some of his literary shortcomings, or to be kind,

difficulties with his style such as clumsiness of expression, obscurity,

incomprehensibility, disjointedness, verbose phraseology, and his use of

Ibid., p. 31, Chapter 8, lines 129 - 132.

Ibid., pp. 31 - 32, perhaps in the light of Theodotus' suicide.

302
 1 6 1
solecisms. Surely, this may be an attempt by Methodios to declare his

humble unworthiness to the task assigned him. This is a common trait of

1 6 2
hagiographic writers especially of this period, but the description of the

characteristics of his style does ring especially true in the case of

Methodios.

The remainder of Chapter 9 is a lengthy dialogue between Euthymios and

Leo with regard to the theology of images and their historical place within

the Church. Many of these arguments have been previously discussed in

this thesis, but in this work by Methodios, himself, they should be re-

emphasised to accentuate the thinking by two of the leading iconodules in

the mid-ninth century. Euthymios discusses this with the Emperor. He

relates that he had personally travelled in both the East and the West in his

role as a courier for both the Patriarchal throne and the imperial court and

he had seen Christian lands far and wide. He emphasised that throughout

his travels Christians were united, the Church was one. He confessed that

the Faith and Traditions were universally held as hymned in the Creed.

Therefore, having read the writings relating to the Holy Images, having

personally seen and venerated with great throngs of the faithful, the Holy

Image of Our Lord in Edessa, "the image made without hands" by the

Incarnate Son of God Himself, knowing that this illumination and gift came

1 6 1
Gouillard, Une Oeuvre Inedite Du Patriarche Methode: L a Vie D'Euthyme De Sardes", p. 33,
T < T O
Chapter 9, lines 166 - 170: "...f|ioi Y<*P * ° d y f o u A E K T E O V udvov T O O K E A E U O O E V T O I ; J I O I , K a i
T
Tfj d<|>utg K a i d j i o u a f a u o u , OJQ JOLC, Tfoivdg K O T O K P I O E ' V T I Tr)v o i K E i a v 5irjyr|aiv, I v a rj K a i IK
T O U T O d9Ao<|>op<3v 6 uaKapioq, T I ? O U V E X E T TUSV Suo^paSiwv (iou daGna-ri £yKpouTrron£vou T O O
CT T(
£TTO(|>£iAo|i£vou o u v T d v o u TIDV SiriyrjoEwv, K a i Tij aoAoiKt^ xa MU 5 v PopBopuSwv \iou A E ^ E W V
TOTC; n p o a T u y x d v o u o i (IEVWV auTog daaij>r|q K a i d K a T a v d r | T o g . "
1 6 2
S e e the introduction of Vita of Methodios as an example: P G "Sanctus Methodius -
Constantinopolitanus patriarcha", vol. c, cols. 1252 ff.

303
through the Holy Spirit, Euthymios could and does witness and avow these

truths before the Emperor and the people, stating, these Traditions had

been passed from the Apostles through the martyrs and the Fathers to their
1 6 3
day, to be held, observed and protected.

At this point, Euthymios launches into a series of condemnations of the

iconoclasts, which he does without naming specific names. These

censures are reminiscent of the condemnations of Nicaea II and anticipate

the language that Methodios will employ for the Synodicon of Orthodoxy.

He that does not venerate the holy and august

images - Anathema! He who does not hold them
[in honour] for himself - Anathema! Those who
evade the Traditions, announcing the intention of
1 6 4
deviation and strange proposals - Anathema!

It should be noted that the appeal to the Tradition and its inviolate nature is

strongly accented. The text and resultant actions by Leo demonstrate the

climate of this time in Constantinople. Patriarch Nikephoros is exiled, as is

1 6 5
Euthymios, and there is reported a reign of terror by the emperor, Leo V.

Leo is assassinated shortly therafter. The new emperor is Michael II, who

attempts to be more lenient with Euthymios and to inveigle the holy man to

3
Gouillard, " L a Vie D'Euthyme De Sardes (+831) une oeuvre du patriarche Methode", p. 38,
Chapter 9, lines 175 - 182.
1 6 4
Ibid., p. 35, Chapter 9, lines 188 - 190: " . . . ' O jir} n p o o K r i u v u v rdq dyiac, K a i O"ETTTC(Q dicdvac;
EOTW d v d G c u a K a i 6 ur) E"XWV OUTUK; dvdQe\ia K a i TiepaiTEpw T W V Trapa5E5o(i£vu)v n s p i au-riDv
dAAoTpfwc; AaAouvTEi; f\ d<|>pa(vovT£g E T E V d v d Q e j i a . ' "
1 6 5
Ibid., p. 35, Chapter 9, lines 190 - 193; note in the next line the island of T h a s o s is identified
as the place of exile for Euthymios (see figure 6: - map of the Balkan Peninsula).

304
his thinking. When Euthymios did not acquiesce, he is exiled once again to
1 6 6
the island of Thrasos.

In the central portion of Chapter 12, Methodios reports the falling asleep in
1 6 7
the Lord of the exiled holy Patriarch Nikephoros. Following this

occurence Theophilos, the son of Michael II, assumes the throne. The

beginning of Chapter 13 finds Methodios again commenting on Euthymios'

gift of prophesy. As he describes it, the holy man had predicted the deaths

of Leo V, then secondly, that of Michael II and finally he foresaw the third

death, that of Theophilos, himself. This daunting augur frightens the new
1 6 8
emperor. Theophilos and Euthymios engage in a face-to-face

confrontation, which results in the beating of Euthymios, as well as his

1 6 9
incarceration on Agios Andreas island prison. This is the locale of the

site of several encounters and interactions between the two iconodulic

champions. Euthymios, the elderly battle-worn campaigner, was destined

to become the subject of the younger Methodios' indite. Methodios, who

was fated to orchestrate finally the triumph in the cause they each held so

dear, clearly became attached to Euthymios at this time. When they met as

adults, both were being held in the hellhole prison of St. Andrews. The

conditions of Euthymios' and Methodios' imprisonment are described in

1 6 6
Ibid., p. 37, Chapter 11.
1 6 7
This is dated 2 J u n e 828 AD.
1 6 8
Gouillard, "La Vie D'Euthyme De S a r d e s (+831) une oeuvre du patriarche Methode", p. 39,
Chapter 13: " . . ' . E v otg <t>oiTwvTiuv noAAuiv K a i T O trpog e u a ^ P t i a v Pepaiouu^vwv, y(vETa( TIQ
firjvuTiKTj ypa<|>!} ^ i r a i r E i A o u a a JQ K p a T o O v n dtioJAEiav, o t a tvi AEOVTO? npd dKTOurjvou Tfjg
KaTaoTpo<|>fj<; aUToO K a i TOO naTpoQ T O U T O U n p o n E V T a u i j v o u , OIJTU) T O U T O U irpo x p o v o u T O O O U
o a o u a u n P i j o E T a i . ' H 8 E lbo£,e K a i £Kp(0Ti, T<V TrpwTU) K a i SEUTE'PW Tfji; ^Tra^tiBEdaEug, E'TI K a i iv
T<5 Tpt'Tty dipEuSifc E t v a i K a i ITAE'OV E T a p a ^ E v . . "

1 6 9
Ibid., p. 43, Chapter 14.

305
 170
detail in Chapter 1 5 - 1 6 and in Methodios' Vita. Despite these

deplorable conditions, there develops, within a short period in December of

831, a sympathetic bond of respect and friendship between the two

171
churchmen. Although a description of the prison environment is

enthralling, the most cogent portrayal is of the interactions between these

two men. Nonetheless, the conditions of incarceration must have been

much more devastating on the physical health of a seventy-eight year old

Euthymios, than on a much younger and healthier Methodios.

Shortly after Euthymios' arrival on St. Andrews, the two iconodules are

allowed to meet at their own request. On 17 December, 831 they come

together. Methodios stated that he was honoured to be blessed by such a

holy shepherd of Christ's flock. He prostrated himself before the saint and

Euthymios blesses Methodios on his head. This blessing imparted to the

author great courage and relief from the conditions of imprisonment. A little

past three in the afternoon, they are served a meal; but the guard was

apparently unaware it was the period of the Christmas Fast. After the food
1 7 2
is delivered, the two men of God pray for the guard. It is not clear

"Sanctus Methodius - Constantinopolitanus patriarcha", col. 1248 d.

1 7 1
This time-frame is determined by working backwards from Euthymios' date of death.
1 7 2
Gouillard, " L a Vie D'Euthyme De S a r d e s (+831) une oeuvre du patriarche Methode", p. 45,
Chapter 17, lines 326 - 338: " K a i irdAiv EnavEAGciv K a i a u v o n i A w v i^uTv, oi'atTijoEug Tfjq Trap'
T
f\\i<3v, ftyayEv T 6 V n a v d y i o v Tpdmv; T O O O T I * S s u p o K a i 6\|>i] T O V Tdtrov, E V ty ^niTETayuEGa
K A s f a a f at.' "Oq £A6dvTi ouyKaGEoGEii; K a i s v S o i i i ; I ^ U I V A a A f j a a i K a i d K o O a a i A d y t a n a p ' O O T O U
TO (isAippuTa £i)Aoyr|9fjvai T E 6TT' a d T o O Kai dpTOV Kai TroTT^piov 8 ^ a a 0 a i 5id Tfj<; dyiaq
XEipdg auToO, 'EdxapiOToOuEv T<? ©£($, npog T O V daiov f^rjUEv, ' O T I OE T O V ITOIUEVO IOIQ
TOTTEIVOTC; I^JITV Kai uiKpoig rrpopdToig Eig d S ^ y i a v KExdpiaTai'. npoaKuv^aavTEQ 5 E TI^V x t i p a
E V T<V dnoxupEiv Kai E H ' d<|>GaAiioT<; PaAdvTEi; £K6u(iU)g Kai T T O G E I v d T a T a , E T T O ETTI K o p u c ^ v rjuTv
a V T £ K a
6EUEV((> Tr|v naAd(ir|v Kai ETTEO^ajiEv^ <$amp ljTrjoajiEv, drrEAuaajiEv x fp° S '
- T
K A O I ' O V T E Q Etri T O SETTTVOV n a p t i y o p r j a a v T E i ; r | v y a p l^uEipivi^ w a s i Ivdir) (3pa K a i T I , O U T O I T E
f\\i£ic, Trpdg T O O KaTEXovTog napaKATiGEVTEQ 4>ayETv E K ndvTuiv d5taKp(T0)g d o w v d v dnocjTEi At]

306
whether the prayer is because he is unenlightened about the Church's fast

rules; but it appears more likely to be one of gratitude for his kindness in

being gracious enough to allow these prisoners private time together. After

this time together, they are once again separated.

Chapter 18 depicts in graphic terms the suffering and brutal torture of

Euthymios at the hands of a logotheti from Theophilos' court. This cruel

interrogator maltreated the elderly bishop by racking him, redolent of the

1 7 3
manner of suffering endured by St. Peter, the chief of the Apostles. The

object of the questioning is to ascertain the names of those people who had

visited Euthymios in exile. Methodios overheard the sounds of the

punishment from his nearby cell, and he was extremely upset. There are

no shortages of metaphors and comparisons to fellow sufferers among the

many confessors and martyrs of the Church; in fact at one point Methodios

compares Euthymios' ordeal to Christ's own passion and suffering. This

identification is a common one in the genre of this type of Church literature.

Chapter 19 outlines a series of lashings at the hands of the logotheti.

There are lashings, interrupted by questioning, then more lashings; the final

total of strikes is put at 120 by Methodios. Although covered in blood from

the lashings, the holy man remained resolute; he refused to give up other

r||ilv - auvEd£\iaQd T E K0ti ETir|ui;dn£6a T<5 d y a y d v T i irpdi; T O V d y i o v K a i ffSr) K a i a u T o i

npdg E O T i a B f j v a i jnpd\i\ieQa. "
1 7 3
Ibid., p. 47, Chapter 18, lines 346 - 347; "...KOTO T O V Beo^iaKdpiaTov Kopu<t>aTov T O V
dtroaTdAuv ibq TTpdc; c r r a u p d v e[q n o ( v a g d T f A w a a v T E q , . . . "

307
iconodules. Methodios expressed his own feelings and reactions to the

saints suffering and anguish.

As for me in my fortress-like tomb, while he was

thrashing the saint; I fell down prostrate asking for
divine help for him and myself and uttering 'Lord
1 7 4
have mercy' for divine consolation.

In Chapter 20 three facts are revealed: the eminent death of Euthymios, the

chronology and the last encounter between Euthymios and Methodios. The

date was established easily because the Nativity of the Lord in the Flesh
1 7 5
was celebrated on the day before the last events in Euthymios' life. The

last communion of the elderly bishop was a mystical and prophetic

experience for Methodios. Methodios prepared the Holy Mysteries for

Euthymios and it was passed to the aged one via a guard. In the Vita,

Methodios quotes Euthymios asking: "Kupis, TTOU AeiToupyEig;". Initially,

Methodios did not clearly grasp the meaning of this cryptic phrase, "Lord

where do you celebrate the Liturgy?", nor did he understand the prophetic

meaning of this utterance. His response to the great Euthymios was one of

regret for not having a proper place to celebrate the Divine Liturgy. Finally,

Methodios realises the phrase is one that prophesises the saint's death.

Why this conclusion? A grasp of the liturgical theology of the Church is

essential for this insight. Each and every Holy Liturgy is fulfilled by the Lord

on His Heavenly and Celestial altar.

1 7 4
Ibid., p. 4 9 , Chapter 1 9 , lines 3 7 9 - 3 8 1 : "Kdyti J I E V TI? dxupti^ccri T O O OIKECOU idfyou tv T<V
TOV dyiov TiJiTTEaGcu npr|vr|<; TTEOUW E^tfTouv T I \ V 8E(CCV porj0Eiav EctuT<v TE KdK£iv<v T T ) V TOO
' K u p u £Mr\aov' (JHOVI^V elq G E C O V irapdxAriaiv npoTiO^UEvoi;".
1 7 5
Ibid., p. 4 9 , Chapter 2 0 , lines 3 9 6 - 3 9 9 .

308
 For You Christ our God are the One who offers and
is offered, the One who receives and is distributed,
1 7 6
and to You we give glory...

Only when Methodios was able to elevate his reference from the dank

prison cells, even from this temporal world, to the Kingdom of Heaven, did

he fully comprehend that Euthymios was preparing to serve at the altar at

which the eternal Liturgy is served with Christ as the High Priest. The
1 7 7
saintly man received the Holy Gifts and fell asleep in the Lord.

With Euthymios' last earthly acts, the witness of the narrative begins to

relate accounts of the sanctity and power of the relics of the saint.

Methodios uses these events to communicate the essential lesson of grace

and the incorruptibility of deified matter. The saint's body, which has been

transfigured and transformed in Christ, has partaken of the crucifixion, by

its suffering; is now sharing in the Resurrection by conquering the natural

decay of the body. We are all destined to share in Christ's incorruptible

nature to abide in the image, which He created us and in the flesh, which

He assumed and redeemed with His Incarnation. Prior to the Incarnation,

Brightman and Hammond (eds.), Liturgies Eastern and Western, p. 318, Prayer of the
Cherubic Hymn. [Eighth-century usage translation by myself].
1 7 7
Gouillard, " L a Vie D'Euthyme De S a r d e s (+831) une oeuvre du patriarche Methode", pp. 49 -
51, Chapter 20, lines 399 - 408: " . . . K o i v w v f a v U E V T W V dy(iuv fiuaTtipiwv £|ioi 8iaKovT|aan£Vty
e l
K a i dTTOO"T£(Aavri 6 i a x P ° S EVOQ TOV TrpoajiEvdvTwv K a i (jiuAaTTdvTwv T^(ia<;, OUTO be TOOTO
dvaAoyi^ojiEVty uoi OTI TTE^UKEV d iv T<$ n p d i ; \ie EAOEIV E^TI ^OI 6 uaKapiog AEVWV ' K u p i E TTOU
e a
AEiToupyEic;;' 5r|Auv OTI d p a tm XP ^ ? ysvijoETai dyidajiaTog TOO r f j g nETaArjvjiEioc; ETTITEAEUTO,
T
Kdv o d a u v f j K a T O (>f\\ia 6 d S i d y v u a T o g O O T I T T E P T ) V Trpo<|>r|TEudnEvov, o u P A E H O J I E V O V - Kdyw \iiv
T
o u v TdTE diTOK^Kpi(iai.' 'Clq H^ya p o i , u> •na\i\i£yiajE, E( K i d (i£TaArfi|>EU> TTU> dl;iw0T|ao(jai- TTOU
y a p f( Tdnov dpTiux; Tpdrcov dAAug J£ TTOTE U p o u p y i a g d y d K ^ T T ) U O I ; ' K a i d A A a T i v d UTTEITTOV,
aTTEp O6K dvayKatov TTpooUEtvai T<? VOV SmyrjuaTi ~ Aoindv auvfjKa, tig dTT£5r^n£i 6
TpiojiaKapiog STI T
TOOTO T)V TO « TTOU AEiToupyEtg; » tpx\aaoQa( UE Trpo(|>T)TtKWTaTa. "

309
h u m a n s had allowed corruption to enter the world and its life. The

Incarnation of the Word of G o d brought mankind back to the created

potential intended by the Maker. Methodios s t r e s s e s that nowhere is this

fact a s evident a s with the saints who h a v e conformed their lives to Christ.

By conforming to Christ, being one with Him, saints partake of the Divine

Nature of the life of the Holy Trinity, thereby conquering death and

1 7 8
corruption in Christ. The fact that many saints' relics remain

incorruptible is a witness to the reality of the Incarnation and Resurrection.

T h i s m e s s a g e is one of the pivotal teachings of the iconodules. It s p e a k s

directly to the potential for the sanctification of the material cosmos.

Methodios s u m m a r i s e s iconodulic theology in one paragraph.

O h what a miracle! How c a n it be logical for

s o m e o n e who h a s the r e s e m b l a n c e and p o s s e s s e s

the grace relative to the beyond good Lord J e s u s

at the o c c a s i o n of his life-bearing death for u s ,

s i n c e we are conformed to the image of the S o n of

G o d , of which the image is His divine, inseparable

flesh which is from and of His nature. It is thus by

this flesh, that a s image we h a v e s e e n the invisible

G o d the Word and it is at this image of the S o n of

G o d to know his flesh that the saints b e c o m e

conformed [with Him] by the sufferings they endure

for Him. ...for if we had been united with Him in a

death like His, we shall be united in a resurrection

1 7 9
like H i s .

1 , 8
2 P e t e r 1, 4 .
1 7 9
G o u i l l a r d , " L a V i e D ' E u t h y m e D e S a r d e s ( + 8 3 1 ) u n e o e u v r e d u p a t r i a r c h e M 6 t h o d e " , p p . 51 -
53, C h a p t e r 22, lines 436 - 442, lines 438 - 4 3 9 ( R o m . 8, 2 9 ) a n d l i n e s 4 4 6 - 4 4 7 ( R o m . 6, 5):
o V T O K c I V T T V T v
"...0aO(ia dmoc; <Sv 0£tr|<; TOOTO, dKoAouGouv £x C " X<*P 1 "POS ° uTTtpdyaGov

310
Methodios begins a discursive account about eschatological theology in

C h a p t e r s 2 5 and 2 6 . Within C h a p t e r 25, alone, he u s e s ten New T e s t a m e n t

references to support his argument. S i n c e he h a s repeatedly stated that he

is writing this account while still incarcerated, we must marvel at his

familiarity and recall of scripture. He begins by exalting the martyrs and the

honour that awaits them at the d a y of the S e c o n d C o m i n g . His description

starts from Hebrews 11, 39 - 40; but primarily taken from I Corinthians 15,

24ff. T h i s e x e g e s i s e n d s with R e v . 6, 11. T o comprehend this p a s s a g e

from the Vita properly, one must read and consider the carefully s e l e c t e d

scriptural pericopes in the light of the events preceeding their u s e .

Methodios is accentuating the bestowal of the trophy for Euthymios'

martyrdom. T h e granter of this prize will be the Lord, Himself.

T h e n they were e a c h given a white robe and told to

rest a little longer, until the number of their fellow

servants a n d their brethren should be complete,

who were to be killed a s they t h e m s e l v e s h a d

1 8 0
been.

Returning to the implications of the lesson from the first book of

Corinthians, chapter 15, Methodios draws attention to the theme of Christ

Kupiov 'IiiooOv £ni if\q £;wr|<t>dpoi> unip i^n<Dv TEAeuTfjg adToO K T W J I E ' V O U , £TTEI K C U 'od|i|iop<|>oi
Tfjg E I K O V O Q T O O YloO' T O O 0 E O O , (2a|iEv), rfTig fcrrfv 1^ 0 £ i a K a i a|i£ piOTOQ K a i £v adT<5
,

Cmocrrfiaa adp£ auToO' SradTffc yap ihq bi'elKdvoQ T O V dKaTdnTEUTOv 0 E 6 V Adyov EwparajiEv,
T
r j T i v i E ( K O V I T O O Y l o u Q E O O , lfyouv Tij aapicl a u T o u , 8 ( a T W V liiiEp auToO naGTKidTwv
auji^op<t)oOvTai oi dyioi..' E i yap OU(I<|>UTO( yEydvajiEv T<? di|iouopaTi T O O GavaTou O O T O U , dAAd
K a i Tfjg dvaaTaaEGx; to6\ieQa"
1 8 0
Ibid., p. 5 7 , C h a p t e r 2 5 , R e v . 6, 1 1 ; T h e p r e c e d i n g two v e r s e s a r e r e l e v a n t both to the
m e a n i n g a n d to M e t h o d i o s ' m e s s a g e : " W h e n h e o p e n e d t h e fifth s e a l , I s a w u n d e r t h e altar t h e
s o u l s of t h o s e w h o h a d b e e n s l a i n for t h e w o r d of G o d a n d for t h e w i t n e s s t h e y h a d b o r n e ; ' 0
S o v e r e i g n L o r d , holy a n d t r u e , h o w long b e f o r e thou wilt j u d g e a n d a v e n g e o u r b l o o d o n t h o s e w h o
dwell o n t h e e a r t h . ' "

311
making all things subject to Himself. A s the Image of G o d the Father, He

h a s been given authority by the F a t h e r to bring all e n e m i e s , including

death, under His feet. When this is a c c o m p l i s h e d , Christ will present the

1 8 1
Kingdom of G o d to the Father. How d o e s this relate to Euthymios and to

the i c o n o c l a s t s ? Without broadening our thought too much, the moral is

evident. T h e saint h a s earned his future reward, he h a s fought the good

1 8 2
fight, he h a s overcome evil, in Christ. Christ, Himself will vanquish

Euthymios' tormentors, the iconoclasts. In C h a p t e r 26, Methodios reveals a

great distaste for the uncommitted or individuals in the "grey-zone": he

1 8 3
states their fate will be similar to simple h o r s e s or wood. His antipathy

for their fence sitting is very obvious.

T h e n we read that chanting and prayers were said over the uncorrupted

body of Euthymios. After preparing the body, Methodios p l a c e s simple

vestments on the saint, not the elaborate o n e s due his office, and the

storyteller likens them to the burial shroud of Christ, which w a s provided by

J o s e p h of Arimathea. Methodios reads the s e r v i c e , s o m e writings of St.

Paul, P s a l m s and hymns. E v e n though this chanting is b e c a u s e of the

death of Euthymios, Methodios remarks that it is, n o n e t h e l e s s , a joyous

1 8 4
o c c a s i o n when a saint falls a s l e e p in the Lord.

1 8 1
II C o r i n t h i a n s 1 5 , 2 4 ff.
1 8 2
I I T i m . 4 , 6.
1 8 3
Gouillard, " L a Vie D ' E u t h y m e De S a r d e s (+831) une o e u v r e du patriarche Methode", p. 5 9 ,
C h a p t e r 26, lines 5 3 2 - 537.

1 8 4
Ibid., pp. 61 - 6 3 , C h a p t e r s 2 8 a n d 2 9 .

312
After disclosing that the saint's body did not show signs of corruption even

after forty d a y s , Methodios expounds s o m e of the most pivotal and central

theological lessons in the Vita. T h i s o c c u r s in C h a p t e r s 32 - 39.

Methodios u s e s the opportunity to present his theological anthropology.

T h e s e chapters are a lengthy and detailed commentary on Trinitarian

teaching, the P e r s o n s within the Holy Trinity and their relationships,

Christological L o g o s economy, a s well a s both image and likeness a s it

relates to the creation of mankind. T h e application of this theological

perspective, representative of the iconodule's position, vis a vis the

iconoclasts, is d i s c u s s e d in Chapter 34. In Chapter 37, Methodios

d i s c u s s e s the theology of the image in its role of revealing a r e d e e m e d

humanity. Subsequently, he c o m p a r e s the iconoclasts and their h e r e s y

with the historical a p o s t a s y of the Emperor Julian. In C h a p t e r 40, he brings

his treatise full circle, speaking of the first martyrs of the C h u r c h and the

contemporary e x a m p l e , the holy Euthymios, who h a s been martyred for the

s a k e of i m a g e s .

Now that t h e s e chapters have been s u m m a r i s e d , a review of s o m e of the

other details would be of benefit for our understanding of Methodian

theology. T h e future patriarch begins his explanation by stating that the

incorruption of Euthymios' body presents two clear denunciations of the

iconoclasts. T h e r e are t h e s e l e s s o n s to be gleaned from the Euthymian

struggles and his triumph over them.

313
 • His strength during his torture and his

unbroken spirit reflected the reality of

the Resurection.

• By his death and incorruptibility,

Euthymios demonstrated the futility of

his adversaries' position and their

185
perdition.

T h e instruction p r o c e e d s by describing the Word a s the image of the

1 8 6
"v6r\[ia". Methodios a s s e r t s that image, archetype, prototype and the

intimacy of their relationship h a v e an origin in biblical teaching. This

conclusion provides an entree into his thinking. He maintains, without

exception, the image is the Word and the Word is image. He d e c l a r e s that

those who deny i m a g e s deprive t h e m s e l v e s of the Word. T h o s e in rebellion

[the iconoclasts] will deprive t h e m s e l v e s even of the words of the Bible

b e c a u s e t h e s e precepts are there presented. T h e y also will never truly

1 8 7
care about the Word of the G o s p e l s .

But what d o e s he m e a n ? Methodios p r o c e e d s to illustrate by beginning

with the narrative of creation from G e n e s i s 1, 26.

1 8 5
Ibid., p. 6 7 . C h a p t e r 3 2 , l i n e s 651 - 6 5 8 .
1 8 6
Ibid., p. 6 7 , C h a p t e r 3 2 , lines 6 5 8 - 6 6 0 : "t&g ydp 6 Adyoi; EJKUW TOO voifuciToc,." (intellect).
1 8 7
Ibid., p. 6 7 , l i n e s 6 6 0 - 6 6 7 : " . . . O U T W Q dicaW Aoyog T O O TTPOTOTUTTOU KaSfcrraTai 5 i d
ypa<|>r| " P o w a a T O U dpxeTunou T d tSiuJuorra. O O K O U V Adyog" i^ E I K W V , xal Aoyixof oi ttKa^ovTEi;,
the, dAoyoi E£ dvayKoaou, Kdv E { \if\ podAoiTo, teal E i a i v K O A O I V T O ol dvEiicdvioToi. " O n \iiv ydp
E I K W V 6 Adyog Kai Td E^iiaAiv Adyog E I K W V , E K Tfjg ypa(|>f]g T T E I O G E T E V o l dnEiO^crraToi o l Tfj
ypa<|>Tj TTpoapA^TTEiv jirj jiEAETtjaavTEg TTOJTTOTE K a i dnoi ypdi))Ei TTEpl E i x d v o g EiraTTopouvTeg f\\i&c,,
(SanEp o f o v T a i . Ilpdg otfg |ir) n a p d v T a g (5g tv upoacoiriv dvTag £T0i(iu)g diTOKpivd|i£9a (Ag od
tidvov r) 0£(a ypa<t>r) E V Tfj Ka0'f)}ifig Stmioupyig T I ^ V Tfjg EiKdvog E V I ^ T V auToTg U T T E B E T O
T T O I T I O I V , dAAd K a i i% adTofl 5T)(iioupyo0 Adyou Tiapfcrniai T T | V TauTrig x P ^ A T W 0
" L
" V

314
 T h u s said the Father to His equal in power, of the

s a m e strength, and will, co-eternal S o n and Word,

"Let us make man in our Image, after our

188
likeness."

Continuing the d i s c u s s i o n , Methodios e x p a n d s the concept "KCU EITTEV 6

1 8 9
©edg". He states that the mystery of the Trinity begins to be

understood, a s much a s man c a n understand it, in this p h a s e . T h e s e words

indicate the e s s e n c e of consubstantiality, the distinction of p e r s o n s , and the

equality of will. He then points out G o d is a bodiless being, not needing a

voice or e a r s , a s we know them. Methodios attempts to clarify in patristic

language the undertone of m a n ' s tendency to anthropomorphise G o d .

Therefore, the word "said" points to the interaction of G o d the Father, the

1 9 0
living and unconfused hypostasis, with the co-creator, the Word of G o d ,

Methodios extends t h e s e thoughts by discussing the affinity between the

Persons of the Holy Trinity. He dissects the phrase " noirjacjuev

1 9 1
avQpumov KOCT' EiKova rj|i£T£pav Kai KCCG' 6[io(u)aiv " even more

thoroughly. He d i s c u s s e s the grammatical implication of " n o i r j a w ( i £ v " or

a s would be s a i d in English, "Let us make", to Methodios the u s e of "us"

ibid., p. 6 7 , C h a p t e r 3 3 , lines 6 6 8 - 6 7 0 : "Orjaiv yap 6 rkrrrip rrpoi; T O V IOOOQEVT\ xai

6 ( i o 8 u v a p o v Kai 6^io0E^fj Kai auvatSiov O O T O U Y l o v Kai Adyov T O V 5 i i n i o u p y d v T O O TTOVTOQ Kai
TrpuTaviv TIoi^crwuEv dvGpumov K O T ' eficdva l^ETE'pav Kai Ka8" d j i o f w a i v , . . " refer to G e n . 1, 2 6 .
(LXX).
1 8 9
G e n . 1, 3 ( L X X ) . "And G o d s a i d . . . "
1 9 0
G o u i l l a r d , " L a V i e D ' E u t h y m e D e S a r d e s ( + 8 3 1 ) u n e o e u v r e d u p a t r i a r c h e M e t h o d e " , p. 6 9 ,
Chapter 3 3 , 6 7 4 - 6 8 0 : " E l yap E P O U A E T O T O douyxuTov T U V npoaojriuv Tiiprjaai, O I J K dv T I ) V
T O O 'Kai ETTTEV 6 &edq' tyb)vr\v UTT£a^|iiiV£v OTTOU ydp O I ) K E O T I V , 6 i d T O Tairroouaiov Kai
£ a
6|IO<|>UE<; Kai iaoPouAtiTOV, TTpoaGrjaw 6 E Kai daaijiaTov, O J T E <(>u)vfj<; T I C ; X P i otirt dKofjc;
£T0i|iao(a, \ir\ H E O I T E U O V T O C ; dipoq \ir\8t dpyaviKfJg TOT? ji£p(3v i^ J I E A W V KaTaaKEufjc; dc; Adyov ff
ETr'dKpdaoiv, T T E P I T T T ) r| T O O ' E I T T E V ' ((wovri TTpdaKEiTai, dAV (Ag £"n<t>aivr) T O O o u v 5 r m i o u p y o u O E O O
Adyou 6 riaTi^p Kai Qeoq TT|V ^(3adv T E Kai dadyxirrov uirdaTaaiv."
1 9 1
G e n . 1, 2 6 ( L X X ) : " L e t u s m a k e m a n . . . "

315
definitively indicates plurality of P e r s o n s . He a d d s the conclusion is

supported by "our" a s a plural pronoun in the next p h r a s e . In the next

sentence, Methodios attests that not two but three persons are

distinguished in the p e r s o n s of the Trinity. He a d d s that this c o m e s out of

1 9 2
technical agreement of meaning [language].

Quoting S t . P a u l , Methodios further explains who Christ is, "He is the image

1 9 3
of the invisible G o d , the first-born of all creation." Methodios delineates

the essential distinction between the P e r s o n s of the Trinity in this way:

The Father is Intellect, the S o n , a s the Word,

manifests a s the Power of Intellect. T h e Holy

1 9 4
Spirit, a s the Breath of G o d , with His inspiration
1 9 5
and expiration transmits this to u s .

Methodios e x p a n d s t h e s e concepts by citing Christ's a n s w e r to Philip when

Philip a s k e d to be shown the Father. Christ responded,

1 9 2 T
Ibid., p. 6 9 , C h a p t e r 3 3 , l i n e s 6 8 3 - 6 8 5 : " O O K tvi 5 U O , d M ' tv\ T T A E I O V U V Mysyai, wv Kai &
Tpr/ic; dpiQtioq £(aay(iku<; lig K a i IK Tf\c; TexviKfjg dKoAou0(a<; T t a p C a T a T a i . "
1 9 3
Col. 1 , 1 5 .
1 9 4
R e f e r e n c e to G e n . 1, 2 , S e e a l s o P s a l m 3 2 , 6 ( L X X ) A l s o q u o t e d by S t . B a s i l , S t . G r e g o r y of
N y s s a , a n d S t . J o h n of D a m a s c u s : " B y t h e w o r d of t h e L o r d t h e h e a v e n s w e r e m a d e a n d all their
h o s t s by t h e b r e a t h of h i s mouth."
1 9 5
G o u i l l a r d , " L a V i e D ' E u t h y m e D e S a r d e s ( + 8 3 1 ) u n e o e u v r e d u p a t r i a r c h e M 6 t h o d e " , p. 6 9 ,
Chapter 3 3 , lines 6 9 9 — 7 0 3 : " 'fl^ ydp tv T<$ Ylt$ tcai Adyn> T 6 V T E n<rr£pa u><; voOv Kai T O
dvarraud(ievov £TTI TtJ Y l t ? n v e O | i a ewpdicanev K a i i-AdBo(i£v, ooTtug tv T<V nap' % T v ^oyiiaji r( TE
TOO vodg i"|(iu5v Kivr|aig Kai pouAr| Kai TOU 8I' df'pos EAKOIJEVOU rinTv nvEuuaToi; £ioi)>opd Kai
£K<(>opd ^TTii))afEVTai- Kai tv TOUTI? lyo\iev TO KOT' EiKdva tv Tt? Aoyixoi Kai Efvai Kai
8ia5£(Kvua0ai."

316
 He who h a s s e e n me h a s s e e n the Father; how

c a n you s a y , ' S h o w us the F a t h e r ' ? Do you not

believe that I a m in the Father and the Father in

m e ? T h e words that I s a y to you I do not s p e a k on

my own authority; but the Father who dwells in me

d o e s his works. Believe me that I am in the Father

and the Father in me; or e l s e believe me for the

1 9 6
s a k e of the works t h e m s e l v e s .

Chapter 34 is devoted to an e x e g e s i s of the concept of " to the likeness".

Man conforms to the likeness of G o d with his a c t s and with his efforts.

Additionally, he grows in c o n c o r d a n c e to G o d ' s l i k e n e s s a s he learns more

1 9 7
of G o d and applies this to his life. T h i s explanation continues with a

scornful denunciation of the iconoclasts. Methodios states that those who

do not understand the Word that w a s given to us in creation and repudiate

the Word, those without images, c a n never walk, in the Word. That is to

say, they cannot reflect, in their lives the Divine Image, after which they

were created, a s it w a s written in G e n e s i s . S i n c e t h e s e people [the

iconoclasts] deny the image, they c a n never truly comprehend what w a s

1 9 8
written concerning the image of God in Man.

In C h a p t e r 3 5 , a familiar equation of the iconodules is reinterated by

Methodios, " T h e image is the Word and the Word is the image...the drawn

1 9 6
Ibid., p. 7 1 , C h a p t e r 3 3 , lines 7 1 6 - 7 1 7 , a l s o s e e J o h n 14, 1 0 ff.
, 9 7
Ibid., p. 7 1 , C h a p t e r 3 4 , lines 7 2 7 - 7 3 0 .
1 9 8
Ibid., p. 7 1 , C h a p t e r 3 4 , l i n e s 7 3 6 - 740: " < O l > ydp \ii\bk T O V TTjg 8r|uioupy(a<; i^|iiv
napa5E5o(i£'vov <Xdyov> OUVIE'VTES, dAoywTorroi <|>T|ui K a i d v E i K d v i a T o i , TT<3<; KOTO TT^V Gsfav
EiKova oiTouodaaiE'v TTOTE 8ia^ijaEa0ai, KaG' rfv Kai £KT(a0tiaav, auTo TO KOT' siKdva
yEyEvfjoGai, eXi odv £v Adyty SianopEUEoGai, d laiiv dv E i K d v i , ihq K a i yEypairrai, E^apvoujiEvoi
Kai UTJSE y£ypd<|>6at TTWTTOTE ouvtEvai 8 u v d u £ v o i ; "

317
image is equal to the spoken word." He e x p a n d s this teaching by saying

that the S o n of G o d , the L o g o s , is by nature the image of the invisible G o d .

Christ, the L o g o s , entirely reveals the Father a s intellect and the co-eternal

Holy Spirit is revealed through the S o n . Likewise, our capacity a s human

beings to verbalise thought reflects this likeness s u c h a s the relationship of

2 0 0
the colours in an image bears a r e s e m b l a n c e to the prototype. Having

gone quite theoretical in previous chapters, C h a p t e r 36 finds Methodios

returning to the significance of the image to the Faith. R e c a p p i n g his

former arguments, he then states G o d is manifested in true creation and in

the writings of Scriptures. Methodios d e c l a r e s that G o d ' s prophets, who

were taught by the Spirit, brought the Word to life. Methodios now a s k s the

rhetorical question, for which other "Apostolic Bible" should we a s k in order

to show the certain fact that we, mankind, were made in G o d ' s image a s

written in the Bible? T h e teachings in Scripture have set the practice of

2 0 1
imprinting images and preserving them. At the conclusion of C h a p t e r

37, Methodios c o n d e m n s iconoclasts for their reliance on the words of the

Scripture, while not recognising Christ who appeared in form and colour.

He then c h a s t i s e s the heretics for not understanding the concept of the

c o n d e n s c e n s i o n of Christ's Incarnation in His love for man and d e c l a r e s

this act h a s redeemed the entire c o s m o s from s i n . He g o e s on to

2 0 2
anathematise the iconoclasts for being tools of the Devil.

Ibid., p. 73, Chapter 35, lines 741 - 742: "Eixwv ydp 6 Adyog, K a i 6 Adyog f\ EIKUV ii
ypa<()0HEvr) E(KWV T<5 5 i d aj6\iaroq Adyy I a r | TTE^UKEV."

2 0 0
Ibid., p. 7 3 , C h a p t e r 3 5 , l i n e s 7 4 7 - 752.
2 0 1
Ibid., p. 7 3 , C h a p t e r 3 6 , l i n e s 7 5 4 - 765.
2 0 2
Ibid., p . 7 5 , C h a p t e r 3 7 , l i n e s 7 8 8 - 798.

318
Concentrating on the treatment, the elderly Euthymios received at the

h a n d s of his torturer, Methodios a s k s the question, " P e r h a p s w e should a s k

the question, who visited t h e m ? " He proclaims we [the iconodules] should

interrogate them! They daily blaspheme and strike out against the

righteous Patriarchs a n d fathers. He levels the a c c u s a t i o n : "You once

tormented the first martyrs, they died once and now the s a m e thing is

happening again to those who fight a n d die for the image of Christ, a s did

203
the saintly E u t h y m i o s . "

In the last significant Chapter, number 4 7 , Methodios e m b a r k s on a lengthy

prayer of intercession b e s e e c h i n g the newly martyred saint. He d e c l a r e s

his unworthiness a n d that he is a sinner in his tomb, in pain, being

submitted to s e v e r e punishment. He is writing the life of the martyred saint

as he w a s ordered to write this work. Methodios prays imploring

Euthymios: "Guide m e , you who in our generation were Apostolic a n d the

most accomplished of martyrs. Y o u , who lived your life in a n o c e a n of

c o m p a s s i o n , a n d died spreading your action in miracles a n d exorcising

d e m o n s . Y o u who otherwise knew me previously a s a child, you took me in

2 0 4
your arms. Y o u encouraged me to overcome my vanities." " R e s p o n d to

my call, a s you did call to the a s c e t i c s who p r e c e e d e d you. Y o u a s k e d and

2 0 3
Ibid., p. 7 9 , C h a p t e r 4 0 .
2 0 4
Ibid., p 8 7 , C h a p t e r 4 7 , l i n e s 9 6 3 - 9 6 4 : "..6 ndAai eyvuKug Kai unayKaAiadjjEvog Kai
Adym £na(vou cig npoGupfav TTOAAOKIQ Tovwaag (aou Tr)v xauvdTtjTa,.." This must have occurred
a r o u n d t h e time of E u t h y m i o s ' exile in P a n t a l l a r i a , w h i c h i s c l o s e to M e t h o d i o s ' native i s l a n d of
Sicily. T h e p h r a s e " o v e r c o m e m y v a n i t i e s " i s a p o s s i b l e r e f e r e n c e c i t e d in t h e Vita of M e t h o d i o s to
the influence of a c e r t a i n "holy m a n " w h o e n c o u r a g e d t h e youthful Methodios to e m b r a c e t h e
m o n a s t i c w a y of life.

319
received, give me to acquire the understanding to fear and love G o d .

Intercede for me. Moreover, grant to the faithful and to me the c o r r e c t n e s s

of dogma. Stop the bleeding of the Orthodox by the shedding of your

2 0 5
blood." Methodios e n d s his work with a plea for Euthymios to a c c e p t his

work like the myrrh and aloe, which w a s provided for the body of Christ by

2 0 6
Nicodemus.

Now that this brief examination of the Vita of Euthymios has been

completed, what general observations c a n be m a d e ? No doubt, Methodios

sincerely wished to honour, document and chronicle the life of this martyred

hero of the iconodules. A s an admirer of Euthymios, he w a s determined to

present the events of the life and the struggles of the bishop against the evil

machinations of the iconoclasts. Methodios interwove within the narrative

specific s c e n a r i o s to present the convictions of the supporters of images

and to contrast t h e s e historical, traditional, patristic and scriptural tenets to

the empty h e r e s y of iconoclasm.

However, by examining both Vitae in the context of the historical and

hagiographical tradition of this period, it is evident that there is a deeper

and more crucial element within the texts. T h e supporters of i m a g e s used

the vehicle of the Vita to convey both theology and iconodulic polemic. The

Vitae of iconodulic saints, beginning with the Vita of Stephen the Younger,

2 0 5
Ibid., p. 8 7 , C h a p t e r 4 7 , l i n e s 9 5 5 - 9 5 7 , l i n e s 9 5 9 - 9 6 4 , l i n e s 9 7 2 - 9 7 5 .

2 0 6
Ibid., p. 8 9 , l i n e s 9 8 4 - 985.

320
written in 809 and the later Vitae had another goal, other than

transmitting the life of the subject. T h i s goal w a s to present the historical

facts in the perspective of the iconodules. Starting in the early ninth

century and continuing beyond Photios' patriarchate, the authors presented

views of the details of the conflict in a light that praised and lauded the

defenders of images. T h e lives of the iconodule patriarchs, G e r m a n o s ,

T a r a s i o s , Nikephoros, Methodios and many iconodulic saints presented

these e c c l e s i a s t i c a l figures in the most complimentary light. T h e histories

stressed the holiness and piety of iconodules and diminished the

accomplishments of any iconoclast. Methodios, himself, c o m m i s s i o n e d

Ignatios the D e a c o n to write the Vitae of two of his p r e d e c e s s o r s , T a r a s i o s

and Nikephoros. T h e interesting fact concerning this appointment w a s that

Ignatios was a repentant iconoclast hierarch. T h i s patriarchal court

patronage continued after Methodios s o that the "propaganda machine" not

only influenced the presentation of lives, but also accentuated the roles of

certain individuals or groups of individuals to the detriment of others. The

exploitation of the historical record s e r v e d the iconodules not only to

preserve their triumph but also to s h a p e the consciousness of the

population. O n e example that c a n be cited is found in the Vita of St.

loannikios. It provides the following description of the events during

Methodios' patriarchal y e a r s :

But the evil demon who hates the good could not

bear to behold the peaceful state restored to the

S e v c e n k o , " H a g i o g r a p h y of the I c o n o c l a s t i c P e r i o d " , p. 1 1 5 .

321
 c h u r c h e s of G o d . S o he entered into s o m e glory-

seekers, men of aged appearance who were

deluded in their minds, the aforementioned j e a l o u s

Stoudites and their colleague K a k o s a m b a s , whom

you all know to be vessels fitted to destruction.

W h e n he found them he turned their unjust and

profane tongues to babbling nonsenses and

through them won over a very large faction and

stirred up disorder in the church of G o d . Y o u all

know the s h a m e l e s s face of the men and their

opposition to that great light and martyr Methodios.

<What befell him> w a s no different from what

h a p p e n e d to that great and wondrous A t h a n a s i o s

2 0 8
at the h a n d s of schismatics and Arians.

In this p a s s a g e , the role of the Studite monks is identified with an extremely

unseemly e p i s o d e . T h e y are not only a c c u s e d with being c o n n e c t e d with a

s m e a r campaign against Methodios. T h e episode is the incident previously

d i s c u s s e d , that Patriarch Methodios w a s a c c u s e d of s e x u a l misconduct by

2 0 9
a woman. T h e w o m a n , who w a s the mother of Metrophanes, the future

Archbishop of S m y r n a , claimed s h e w a s molested by Methodios. The

Patriarch proved his i n n o c e n c e but the Studite's c a u s e w a s harmed,

b e c a u s e Metrophanes w a s said to to be in the group of Studite supporters.

T h e assumption w a s that this charge could not h a v e b e e n brought without

Studite aid. Concurrently, they are identified with the actions of the

2 0 8
P e t e r the Monk, "Life of S t . l o a n n i k i o s " , p. 3 4 0 .
2 0 9
Bekker (ed.) Chronicle of Georgios Cedrenus, pp. 83 ff; also found in Bekker (ed.)
Chronographia Theophanes Continuatus, p p . 1 5 7 ff; c i t e d in D v o r n i k , The Photian Schism, History
and Legend, pp. 1 4 - 1 5 .

322
archheretical Arians and by their contribution to this s l a n d e r o u s o c c u r r e n c e ,

the role of the Studite H o u s e in the iconodule victory w a s d e v a l u e d .

P o e m s and Liturgical Writings

T h e Oxford Byzantine musicologist, E g o n W e l l e s z , c h a r a c t e r i s e s two great

poetic forms of E a s t e r n piety a s the kontakion and the c a n o n . Earlier in the

development of the musical form, c a m e the troparion. Troparia are shorter

2 1 0
prayers that were written and inserted after the v e r s e of the P s a l m s . In

the fifth century the troparia evolved into longer v e r s e s , s u n g only after the

three to six last v e r s e s of the p s a l m .

T h e kontakion a s a poetic form is a s s o c i a t e d with the hymnographers, St.

2 1 1
A n a s t a s i o s , Kyriakos and R o m a n o s . Developing about the sixth century

this form consists of "eighteen to thirty s t a n z a s all structurally alike. The

single s t a n z a is called a Troparion; its length varies from three to thirteen

2 1 2
lines." Later emerged the musical form which b e c a m e known a s the

canon, "It is a complex poetical form m a d e up of nine o d e s , e a c h of which

originally c o n s i s t e d of six to nine troparia...the nine o d e s of every c a n o n

are modelled on the pattern of the nine canticles from the Scriptures and

W e l l e s z , E . ( 1 9 4 9 ) A History of Byzantine Music and Hymnography ( C l a r e n d o n P r e s s ) , Oxford,

p. 1 4 4 .
2 1 1
Ibid., p. 1 5 2 .
2 1 2
Ibid., p. 1 5 2 .

323
 213
have the character of hymns of p r a i s e . " N a m e s a s s o c i a t e d with this

hymn form are St. Andrew of C r e t e , St. R o m a n o s the Melodist, St. J o h n of

D a m a s c u s and St. Theodore of Studios. In the Resurrection C a n o n of the

D a m a s c e n e , there is a reduction from nine to eight o d e s by eliminating ode

2 1 4
two. Methodios wrote his work about eighty y e a r s after J o h n of

D a m a s c u s and n e a r contemporary with T h e o d o r e of Studios and his brother

J o s e p h , Archbishop of T h e s s a l o n i k i , who w a s also a hymn writer. Later in

this period, hymnographers include:

Another pair of brother, T h e o p h a n e s (759-c. 842)

and T h e o d o r u s , 'the branded ones' (oi ypcnrroO,

and Methodius (+846) fought and suffered for the

cause of orthodoxy, and composed Canons,

hymns, and Stichera for the f e a s t s of the Saints.

St. Methodius, who c a m e from a family of Sicilian

patricians, became Patriarch of Constantinople;

having been mutilated by the Iconoclasts, he

dictated his hymns, s o m e of which were written in

an iambic m e a s u r e of twelve syllables, a metre

2 1 5
favoured by J o h n D a m a s c e n e .

T o w a r d s the end of the ninth century, J o s e p h the Hymnographer (of

Studios) and Metrophanes continued the tradition.

2 1 3
Ibid., p. 1 6 8 .
2 1 4
Ibid., p p . 184-186.
2 1 5
Ibid., p. 2 0 6 .

324
T h e first group of hymns to be considered during this survey are those,

which have b e e n published. T h e reference, which l e a d s to the text of e a c h

hymn, is noted within the comments.

Idiomelon on St. Constantine and St. Helena

T h e text of this hymn is found in W. Chris and M. P a r a n i k a s , Anthologia

Graeca carminum christianorum, p. 99. T h e catalogue by E . Follieri lists

2 1 6
this work. It c a n also be found in Menees de toute I'annee, tomos 5,

R o m e , 1899, p. 145. T h e text u s e d here is from the Menaia, month of May,

2 1 7
p. 146.

T h i s idiomelon is a hymn of praise for T h e Emperor Constantine I and his

mother the E m p r e s s Helena. Their feast day is May 2 1 . In present u s a g e ,

this hymn is chanted at the conclusion of the Orthros. It is s u n g in plagal

tone 4.

'O T(3v 'AvctKTwv "Ava£, Kai &eoq, 6 TTAouaiaic;

SwpeaTc; KaTaKoa[i<3v -roug dc|ioug, auTog

oupavdGev, waTtep IlaOAov TOV doi5iuov, 5id
OX]\IEIOU TOO iTaupoO, oe KuvcrravfTve
£^wypr|a£v. 'Ev IOOJQ, (j^aag, VIKO ToGg

£X0pou<; aou -
6v dva^iiTtiaac; auv nn PiT

0£O(|>povi, Kai £upu>v wg ETTOBEIC;, TOUTOUQ KOTO

KpdTOg ETpOTTOJfJU). luv auTfj IKETEUE, UTTEp

6p9o8dc;(i)v BOOIAEWV, Kai TOO (JHAOXPICTTOU

2 1 6
Follieri, H. (1960) Initia Hymnorum Ecclesiae Graecae, Studi e Testi - 211 (Biblioteca
A p o s t o l i c a V a t i c a n a ) , C i t t a del V a t t i c a n o , p. 2 9 3 .
217
TErAE ( e d . ) Liturgical Books of the Months (MHNA/A TOYXPONOY).

325
 iTpcrroO, KCU TTCXVTWV TWV TIIV [iVT]pr|v aou

TEAOUVTWV moTu5q, TOV povov <|>iAdv9pa)TTOv,

2 1 8
A u T p w B f j v a i TTaarig opyf^g.

The following translation is for meaning and not designed for poetic value.

The Prince of P r i n c e s and G o d , who adorns from

heaven with rich gifts, those who are worthy,

strengthened you, Constantine, like the famous

P a u l , through the sign of the C r o s s

"By this sign conquer, your enemies", you s a i d ;

together with your devout mother you s e a r c h e d for

2 1 9
a n d found, that which w a s d e s i r e d .

Together with her pray to the only Lover of

Mankind, on behalf of Orthodox Kings, the Christ-

loving army and all celebrate your memory

faithfully that they may be redeemed from all

Canon in Honour of St Nicholas

This work of Methodios is found in Pitra, pp. 3 6 3 - 364. According to the

notation introducing the hymn, it is sung in the s e c o n d tone and in a spirited

manner. It is labelled a c a n o n but it is only a fragment of the entire c a n o n .

T h i s conclusion is offered, b e c a u s e in its p r e s e r v e d form, it d o e s not meet

2 1 8
Ibid., p. 146.
2 , 9
The precious Life-Giving Cross.
2 2 0
Translation mine.

326
the criteria for a c a n o n . In fact, there appear to be only three s t a n z a s from

the main portion of the canon reproduced in this archive. Within the text,

there are s e v e r a l c l u e s , which support this conclusion. T h e first s t a n z a is

a d d r e s s e d to G o d , a s Trinity. In the next few s t a n z a s , Nicholas is directly

a d d r e s s e d : this is a c c o m p a n i e d by a switch in the t e n s e s of the verbs to the

second person. No doubt, the last s t a n z a printed in Pitra is the

221
Theotokion. T h e r e are s e v e r a l p l a c e s within the text that Methodios

utilises a s an opportunity to present theology that could be interpreted a s

iconodulic polemic. T h e Theotokion is the most c o n s p i c u o u s v e r s e in which

this o c c u r s .

T h e opening two lines of s t a n z a one are a d d r e s s e d to the Trinity.

High and only all powerful G o d h e a d , with one

2 2 2
nature and three times glorified King.

In this introductory p h r a s e , Methodios harkens back, theologically, to the

conflict of Nicholas' e r a . He directly frames the reference to the Trinity in

anti-Arianistic language. T h e next few lines a s k that the memory of

Nicholas be enlightened by G o d . T h e next s t a n z a directly addresses

Nicholas to give the chanter of his praise the c o n c i s e word to d e s c r i b e the

2 2 3
man of G o d . T h e following few lines could very well depict Methodios

pondering his own s i n . It h a s been shown and will be demonstrated in

2 2 1
C r o s s and Livingstone (eds.) The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, p. 1365, " In the
Eastern Church, a stanza of liturgical hymnography addressed to the Blessed Virgin Mother, the
Theotokos. The concluding verse in a series of troparia usually takes the form of a Theotokion."
2 2 2
Pitra, " S . Methodius C P " , p. 363: "Y(J»(aTr| jidvn nava0EVE<; Gtapxfa- M i a TE $uoif KCU
1
TpiQ dtvaKTE S d ^ a . "
2 2 3
Ibid., p. 363: "npoaSt^ai TOUTO- T O V PpaxuTocrov Adyov, "ApiaTE dvep- TOU 0EOO..."
Chanter is understood from previous verse.

327
s o m e penitential hymns, that this guilt w a s part of Methodios' make-up

b e c a u s e of unknown events before his stay in R o m e . Listen to the plea of

the hymnographer to Nicholas, the holy man.

W e implore you O, fervent protector from danger,

shield those who dare to c o m e to you and to hymn

2 2 4
passionately.

T h e r e is an alternative reading of the s a m e p h r a s e that c a n be interpreted

in this manner; the person coming to Nicholas may be emboldened by his

or her p a s s i o n for the saint to approach him in prayer.

The Theotokion is s o interesting in its theological language that it will be

produced in its entirety [see footnote 223]. T h e c o n c e p t s are not new to

Methodios, but he d o e s m a n a g e to insert them in this hymn.

W e s e e in the first line praise for the Virgin Mother. Methodios continues,

and tells his listeners, why s h e is praised. S h e h a s contained in her womb

the Word of G o d . T h e L o g o s burst forth from the T h e o t o k o s bearing flesh,

Incarnate. He c a m e to s a v e and refashion mankind, who had been

corrupted by the ancient transgression. He did this a s G o d and with the

2 2 5
Theotokos' contribution, his humanity. What is demonstrated in v e r s e is

the theology of the iconodules. Their conviction w a s that through the

2 2 4 T
Ibid., p. 3 6 3 : " H^ai Suaumer TOIC; TOAH<3OIV EK TrdGoir M E ^ I T E I V ae 0Ep|j£' dv KIV5UVOI<;
TTpOOTCtTTlV."

2 2 5
Ibid., p. 3 6 4 : " ' E v aoi TO KA^CX;' (jT]Tpoirdp9£VE T T E A I - ©ETOQ yap Adyog- E V yaorpi aou
v v
aKTivwaag - EAani|j£ ad0iQ£v K6O\U$ aapKo^dpog- - "Iva T6V TrdAar napapdaEi <)>0dpEVT<r -
loiaaq ibq Qeoq 5id aou dvaTrAdaq."

328
Incarnation of Christ, by the Theotokos, G o d provided for the transforming

potential, in Christ, not only for mankind, but also for all of creation. A s h a s

been shown in many writings of Patriarch Methodios, this is one principal

premise of iconodulic theology. E v e n though, iconoclasts also believed in

the Incarnation, the iconodules attempted with this type of logic to frame

their r e s p o n s e in a way that would minimise the iconoclastic identification of

Incarnation.

In imaginem sic dictae rfjg XdAioig portae

Until recently there were only two s o u r c e s to locate this work. Fortunately,

a third s o u r c e h a s been added recently. T h e previous a r c h i v e s are found in

Sternbach and in Mercati. T h e newer document is translated into English

2 2 6
and is u s e d here with the permission of the translator. T h e complete

text is presented here and will be a n a l y s e d at the conclusion.

On the Icon of Christ above the Bronze Gate

S e e i n g , O Christ, your most pure Icon
And your C r o s s inscribed in image,
In reverence I worship your true flesh.
For being by nature the Father's timeless Word,
From a mother you a p p e a r e d in time, by nature
mortal.
Therefore, when I circumscribe you and depict in
types,
I do not circumscribe your immaterial nature,
For it is higher than depiction and than p a s s i o n s .
Depicting the, O Word, your flesh that's p a s s i b l e
I s a y that you are G o d uncircumscribable.
But the disciples of M a n e s ' doctrines,

2 2 6
Methodios of Constantinople, (843) Ell THE EIKONA THE XAAKHZ, trans. Archimandrite
Ephrem L a s h , February 2001, http://web.ukonline.co.uk/ephrem.

329
 W h o mindlessly babbling their opinion
Ingloriously declare the incarnate nature you
asumed,
B e c o m i n g one with humankind, to be mere
phantasy,
Not bearing to behold it shown in image,
With frenzied rage and leonine rash folly
T o r e down your all-revered a p p e a r a n c e ,
Depicted here of old in honoured form.
W h o s e l a w l e s s error utterly refuting
Q u e e n T h e o d o r a , guardian of the faith,
With her golden-purple offspring,
Imitating the Orthodox S o v e r e i g n s ,
And declared Orthodox beyond them all,
With mind devout erected it again
Above the p a l a c e G a t e this present day,
Unto her glory, praise and high renown,
And to the majesty of the whole C h u r c h ,
T h e whole fair guidance of the human race,
2 2 7
T h e fall of foes ill - willed and b a r b a r o u s .

This is a declaration of victory by the reigning Patriarch, who is in the

p r o c e s s of beginning the restoration of icons to the capital. As was

demonstrated in the text of the S u n d a y of Orthodoxy, Methodios u s e s this

very symbolic event to feature the triumphant iconodulic theology and to

disparage the h e r e s y of the iconoclasts. T h e first statement Methodios

2 2 8
m a k e s is to equate the image of Christ with the C r o s s on the G a t e . The

next eight lines s u m m a r i s e the Incarnational b a s i s for the theology of the

2 2 9
icon supporters. L i n e s 11 through 20 accentuate the heretics' errors.

O n c e again a s in the S u n d a y of Orthodoxy, Methodios identifies the h e r e s y

2 3 0
a s form of Manichaeism. L i n e s 13 and 14 support this statement.

Methodios a c c u s e s the iconoclasts of distorting and not recognising the

2 2 8
Stembach, L. and Cracoviae, D. (1898) "Methodii patriarchae et Ignatii patriarchae carmina
inedita", EOS, tomos iv, pp. 150 ff., p. 150, lines 1 - 2.
2 2 9
Methodios of Constantinople, EIE THE EIKONA THEXAAKHE, lines 2 - 1 0 .
2 3 0
C r o s s and Livingstone (eds.) The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, pp. 864 - 865.

330
true nature of the Incarnation. T h e y are d e n o u n c e d for believing the

Incarnation to be a "phantasy". Furthermore, Methodios, in a not s o veiled

personal insult, castigates the Emperor L e o III who began iconoclasm and

according to legend encouraged the original destruction of the image

2 3 1
a s s o c i a t e d with the gate. T h e Patriarch contrasts the pious actions of

the E m p r e s s T h e o d o r a in restoring not only Orthodoxy and the i m a g e s , but

also specifically the image over the gate, for which her heretical

2 3 2
p r e d e c e s s o r s h o w e d s u c h little respect. T h i s poem c l o s e s with a

celebration of the C h u r c h and Her role in the c o s m o s .

In Crucem

This is a curious entry in the Methodian corpus, it s e e m s to refer to two

works at one time. T h e first is a short poem on the C r o s s that is found in

both Sternbach and in Mercati. T h e s e c o n d reference in this entry is a work

of a completely different genre a homily, or to be wholly a c c u r a t e three,

fragments of homilies. An interesting feature of the s e r m o n is that Migne

2 3 3
mistakenly p l a c e s it in the works of Methodios, Bishop of Olympos. The

reference for t h e s e three homily fragments is P G vol. xviii, cols. 3 9 7 - 404.

T h e poem, On The Cross is five lines long. It is not clear, whether this is

the complete work or only a small fragment, which survives. T h e other

2 3 1
Auzepy, "La Destruction de L'lcone du Christ de la Chalce par Leon III: propagande ou
realite?"
2 3 2
Methodios of Constantinople, EIZ THZEIKONA THZXAAKHI, lines 20 - 26.
2 3 3
C r o s s and Livingstone (eds.) The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, pp. 9 1 0 - 9 1 1 .
r d
This Methodios is a fourth century Church Father of the 3 and very early 4th century who fought
against Origen and Gnosticism.

331
possibility is that it is a s e c o n d portion of the poem on the "Image on the

C h a l k e Gate". T h e text is a s follows:

Eiq TOV i T c c u p d v

T o tJwoTTOidv Kcri a e p d a u i o v ^ U A O V ,
EV $ TTETTOVGE a a p K i K w g 6 A£aTTOTr|g,
T T a a i T T p o K E u a i T r p o a K u v r ) T d v , wc; Ge|aig,
X p u a o a T o A i a 0 £ v M i x a r ] A 0 e i o i g TTOVOIC;
2 3
( j ) p o u p o v K p c r r a i d v E V Pity K £ K T r | | i £ v o v .

As we s e e above, Methodios heralds in lines one and two that the Lord

[Master] suffered in the flesh on the life-giving and majestic wood. He

continues that the C r o s s is set before all to venerate a s is meet and right

b e c a u s e it w a s adorned in gold by the G o d appointed labourer, the E m p e r o r

2 3 5
Michael. What w a s gained w a s the mighty fortress of life [i.e. the C r o s s ] .

O n e of the irregular a s p e c t s of this v e r s e is that the E m p e r o r Michael would

have been a very young child at the time of the described action. In fact, he

would have been barely three or four, if that old. T h e r e is the possible

consideration that Methodios did not mention the young E m p e r o r by name

in the previous work, although he w a s referred to in line 19, " a u v TOTQ

2 3 6
EccuTfic; xpuaoTTop<|)upoic; KACCSOIC;". T h i s d i s c r e p a n c y might well explain

Methodios' desire to honour the male heir to the throne and to "lift him up"

Sternbach and Cracoviae "Methodii patriarchae et Ignatii patriarchae carmina inedita", p. 151,
section II.
2 3 5
Ibid., p. 151, number II.
2 3 6
Ibid., p. 151, line 19: "With her golden-purple offspring," Methodios of Constantinople, EII THE
EIKONA THZXAAKHZ, line 21.

332
for his participation in the victory, albeit through his regent the E m p r e s s

Theodora.

Of the Cross and Passion of Christ

- fragments of homilies.

T h e s e three portions of s e r m o n s all deal with the s a m e topic. T h e y are

listed and attributed to Methodios of Constantinople in Pitra p. 354. He

c r o s s - r e f e r e n c e s his cataloguing by citing Allatius and C o m b e f i s .

T h e first of the three homilies is the lengthiest preserved s e g m e n t . T h e r e is

no hint within any of the texts a s to when the s e r m o n s were written or

delivered. T h e opening of the first homily d o e s n a m e the work a s being

written by "Bishop Methodios", although this could very well be Migne's

error in assigning this work to Methodios Bishop of Olympos. T h e s e c o n d

and third s e r m o n s are e a c h labelled a s the work of Methodios. T h e first

homily begins with Methodios posing three rhetorical questions centring on

the C r o s s .

What benefit did the S o n of G o d give us by his

Incarnation? Why the sign of the C r o s s represents

His P a s s i o n [for us] and for others it represents

2 3 7
punishment? What is the value of the C r o s s ? "

Migne (ed.) Patrologiae cursus completus: Series graeca, vol. xviii col. 3 9 7 : "T( w^tAnaev
f\\i&c, 6 Yloc, TOO 0eoG oapKioBeiQ i n i yfj<; Kcti yevdnEvog dvGpumoQ; Aid T( T<5 TOO oTaupofl
0 1 0 t
a x r j u a T i I^V^OXETO TraGsTv, KQI OUK dMti T i v i TijiwpCg; T ( TO X P A ^ ^ ° 0 crraupou; "

333
T h e immediacy of engagement with the central i s s u e of the iconoclasts is

striking. Methodios s e t s forth t h e s e concepts: While the Lord Christ

a p p e a r e d on earth in the flesh, he dimmed the afflictions of those who were

fallen b e c a u s e the demons of the nether world constantly attempt to

e n s l a v e our minds. For this did the Lord Christ take on flesh, and b e c a m e

2 3 8
man. He w a s nailed upon the C r o s s , a s it w a s ordained. Methodios

outlines the value of the C r o s s with s e v e r a l descriptions of its strength. For

mankind, we are no longer ruled by our p a s s i o n s b e c a u s e the sign of the

2 3 9
C r o s s is our fortification. T h e C r o s s conquers the lower powers [evil].

Christ's C r o s s is the shield against injustice and drives it away. It frees the

debt for all the gifts coming down from G o d . It is the m e a n s by which the

2 4 0
C h u r c h is fortified and built up.

T h e s e c o n d of the Methodian homilies d e c l a r e s it is a d d r e s s e d to the

" a s h a m e d concerning the C r o s s of Christ". It is evident from the text that

this is a short, incomplete segment of a longer work. Methodios begins by

posing the situation that those who are of G o d try to b a l a n c e and put their

h o u s e in order. T h i s involves balancing the evils that affect m a n ; t h e s e

include the demon inspired traits of vanity, culpable a c t s with the good that

2 4 1
is s o u r c e d in G o d . Further, into the work, Methodios d e c l a r e s that Christ

went to the C r o s s in the flesh s o that with His stretching out of His a r m s ,

Methodios of Constantinople (edited 1857-1866), "Homily on The C r o s s and the Passion of

Christ (excerpts)," in PG, vol. xviii ed. J . - P. Migne, Paris, cols. 397 - 401, col. 397 d.
2 3 9
This is reminiscent of the protection of Marina from the dragon by the sign of the cross, which
she made with her arms.
2 4 0
Ibid., col. 400 b and c.
2 4 1
Ibid., col. 401 a.

334
humanity could be stretched upward in the direction of G o d . Reading

on, Methodios utilises a customary tool of his rhetorical style by the

repeated u s e of s e v e r a l words that alliterate and play on meaning. This

relates to the subjugation of the physical p a s s i o n s and the replacement of

them by a P a s s i o n for Christ. In this instance, the words that are employed

are "TrdGoc;, naG<3v, TTCXGTI, jjaQeiv, ndGou^ and TraGr|T(£'\ T h e root word in

G r e e k m e a n s "passion".

1
"OTI TOUTII> Tot TTdflT] axn^orn rjupAuvTai ndfioj;

TTaQtiiv 5 i d TOU TraGgtv yevduevoq, Kai GdvctToc;

5 i d GaveTv GavdTou ouSs dAuyuv8£ig OTTO TTdGou^.

OUTE y a p TrdGoc; dAax; auTov E^iajr\aev,... 2 4 3

At the start of the third homily, Methodios presents t h e s e questions. How

did the S o n of G o d in a short and determined time depart in the body?

Next, he a s k s the question concerning the goal for Christian life, how is an

2 4 4
apassionate soul born of one ruled by the passions? Methodios

declares that Christ's humanity could never be s e p a r a t e d from him, and it

w a s , in all r e s p e c t s , no longer subject to death. T h e a d v e r s a r y of Christ,

the Devil, is truly the wounded through the wounds of Christ. Christ

o v e r c a m e those who beat his flesh and he pierced those who stabbed his

body by conquering S a t a n . T h e r e w a s a co-equal suffering; Christ on the

C r o s s and in the flesh suffered; but those who were c a u s i n g his suffering

2 4 2
Ibid., col. 401 b: " "ETTCXGE ydp oapKi TI? TrpocmctyEii; 6 Adyoq, I v a dirAuai] diTovEvapKTinEvov
irAdvi] TOV dv6pamov npog TO dvw TE Kai GETOV n£y£6o<;."
2 4 3
Ibid., col. 401 b, c.
2 4 4
This goal of Orthodox spiritual life is explained in The Philokalia (1978), vol. 3, pp. 331 ff.

335
also suffered. T h i s section e n d s with yet another question. "How rather,

did S o p h i a and a p a s s i o n , remain unwounded, or did not acquire a bad

meaning; and if the body w a s wounded and fixed by nails, how did nature,

2 4 6
which c o m e s from G o d ' s being become purer and i m p r o v e d ? "

None of t h e s e homilies e n d s in the a c c u s t o m e d benediction or theological

conclusion. It is therefore very reasonable to a s s u m e that they are

incomplete and that the record is fragmentary.

Canon in honour of St. Lucia of Syracuse

The virgin-martyr L u c i a w a s an early fourth century Christian of S y r a c u s a in

2 4 7
Sicily. T h e popularity of this saint could not h a v e e s c a p e d a young

Methodios growing up in the saint's hometown. T h e c a n o n c a n be found in

the following r e f e r e n c e s : L. Bernadini, Methodio I patriarca di Constantinopli

(843 - 847), vincitore del II iconoclasmo, R o m a 1970, [typed thesis]. This

text with Italian translation is very difficult to find. T h e Bernardini journal

articles [see bibliography] do not contain this composition. T h e source

2 4 8
u s e d here for the G r e e k text is found in Analecta Hymnica Graeca. St.

Lucia's feastday is celebrated on 13 December.

Methodios of Constantinople, "Homily on The Cross and the Passion of Christ (excerpts)", col.
404 a.
2 4 8
Ibid., col. 404 b: "TT<3Q OO jifiAAov dtpwTdg ye fjieivev Io<)>ia Kai &rta&r\<;, oi38ev npoi;
ou5£vog KaKuvojievt], K<SV Tenvdnevov auvfjv Kai npoaT)Aa)(i£vov TtJ ooJjiaTi PEATIWV Kai
£ T a
KaGapwTt'pa tyuaeuq vdar\(; | i fdv yevvTiadnEvov OI)TIIV 0edv 6irdpxouaa;
2 4 7
C r o s s and Livingstone (eds.) The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, p. 842.
2 4 8
Methodios of Constantinople, (n.d.) "Canon in Sanctam Luciam," in Analecta Hymnica
Graecae - Codibus erute Italiae Inferioris, vol. iv - C a n o n e s Decembris ed. A. Kominis (Instituto di
Studi Bizantini e Neoellenici Universita di Roma), Roma, pp. 279 - 287 for 13 Dec.

336
T h e exact date and place of the writing of this c a n o n is not known, nor is

there any indication within the text. It would be reasonable to a s s u m e that

this might very well have been formulated during Methodios' stay in R o m e

2 4 9
around 8 1 5 . T h i s c a n o n is an acrostic poem. and is s u n g in the fourth

tone.

T h e hymn begins with a plea for the intercession of the virgin-martyr, for her

to bear the prayers of the faithful a s shining branches lighting the

2 5 0
darkness. A c l a s s i c Methodian tool c a n be s e e n in the next v e r s e a s he

u s e s a constant repetition and play on words, specifically in this c a s e the

word is A d ^ a , meaning glory.

AEftd^aaTm ev Tfj af] 6 K d p i o g

dpoAoyia, aEpvf),
Koci auv£&o£arj£_a£ £ a u T Q
E V ©EQ yap n Sri^a aou
iQ dATiGwg 8o£,d^ovTi
2 5 1
TOUC; T O U T O V TTOVTOTE 5oE,d^ovTac;.

The concept of Lucia giving glory to God through her witness is

complemented by the glory G o d h a s bestowed on her b e c a u s e of her

steadfastness. T h e first Theotokion glorifies the Virgin Mother a s the one

who without s e e d brought about the Father's will, through the Holy Spirit.

Together with the S o n and with the flesh, which s h e contributed, the Eternal

S o n w a s without a mother being begotten before all a g e s of the Father;

A poem in which the first letter of each verse forms a word or a series of words. The Akathist
hymn is an example; each verse begins with a letter of the Greek alphabet from alpha to omega.
2 5 0
Methodios of Constantinople, "Canon in Sanctam Luciam", p. 279, lines 1 - 6.
2 5 1
Ibid., p. 279, lines 6 - 12.

337
likewise He w a s without a father a s he w a s Incarnate on earth. This

concrete declaration of the role of the Virgin Mary in Salvation E c o n o m y

provides an agent for praise a s well a s a theological ascertainment, which

undermines iconoclastic theology.

Commenting on Lucia's chastity and her martyrdom, Krausmuller translates

this p a s s a g e on p. 2 8 2 , lines 74 - 78.

We applaud your e x c h a n g e of virginity, for you

remain pure in e s p o u s a l and virginal in marriage,

but you are impregnated regarding martyrdom.

He then presents the following opinion, "In other words, b e c a u s e L u c i a h a s

remained c h a s t e , s h e will receive in e x c h a n g e impregnation by Christ. For

Methodios, L u c i a ' s renunciation e s t a b l i s h e s a contract with G o d , who will

then be obliged to manifest himself a s the h u s b a n d s h e h a s not had

2 5 3
before."

Methodios continues to laud L u c i a for her strength and fortitude in rejecting

her fiance and speaking her mind to her mother. T h i s behaviour w a s not

the customary r e s p o n s e of a daughter to her mother during t h e s e times.

2 5 2
Ibid., p. 280, lines 1 9 - 2 4 .

2 5 3
Krausmuller "Divine Sex: Patriarch Methodios's concept on virginity", p. 63; s e e note 30 a s
explanation. This conclusion on the "obligation" of God may be reading more meaning into the
poetic language and not considering the theology. God is under no obligation to man; He acts only
out of His love.

338
S h e is determined not to marry, but c h o o s e s instead martyrdom a s a virgin

2 5 4
for Christ.

T h e comparison of L u c i a with the "Three Youths in the F u r n a c e " is

made, but it is revealed in the text that L u c i a did not personally recite the

Hymn of P r a i s e of the Youths, "O all ye works of the Lord, b l e s s ye the

2 5 6
Lord; praise and exalt Him forever." T h e canon p r a i s e s the young virgin

for enduring the flames, but e a c h s t a n z a e n d s with the v e r s e of the T h r e e

2 5 7
Youths. T h e insertion of the text from the hymn in praise of Daniel and

the T h r e e Youths is interesting b e c a u s e one of the works of Methodios,

which I could not consult, h a s the s a m e theme. T h e hymn repeatedly

called up in the c a n o n for St. L u c i a is very well known, being prominent in

the Holy Saturday morning s e r v i c e of Holy W e e k in the Orthodox C h u r c h .

T h e canon e n d s by citing the miraculous wonderworking intercessions of

St. L u c i a after her martyrdom for Christ. T h e last two v e r s e s of the c a n o n

declare that St. L u c i a is ever ready to intercede to G o d for the faithful who

2 5 8
turn to her in piety.

The Canon in Honour of St. loannikios

Methodios of Constantinople, "Canon in Sanctam Luciam", p. 284, lines 114 - 126.

2 5 5
Daniel 3, 1 - 57 (LXX).
2 5 6
P a p a d e a s , G . (ed.) (1971) Greek Orthodox Holy Week and Easter Services in Greek/English^
New York NY, p. 428.
2 5 7
Methodios of Constantinople, "Canon in Sanctam Luciam", pp. 285 - 286.
2 5 8
Ibid., p. 287.

339
Of the liturgical works of St. Methodios, this one presents s o m e very

2 5 9
interesting features. It c a n be found in a study by Schiro. This canon

can be dated with relative a c c u r a c y in the last y e a r of Methodios'

2 6 0
patriarchate, loannikios fell a s l e e p in the Lord on 3 November 8 4 6 . The

canon is an acrostic work, which is s u n g in tone plagal four, loannikios w a s

not a distant historical figure to Methodios, they were not only

contemporaries, but also intimately acquainted. Several accounts

2 6 1
document their relationship, including Vita of Michael Synkellos and the

262
Vita of loannikios. T h e canon contains biographical information about

the saint, which is interpreted in a theological light by Methodios. Another

provocative feature of this composition relates to the time which it w a s

written. It contains almost no iconodulic rhetoric or polemic. It would s e e m

Methodios is confident that the threat from iconoclasts is relatively over.

E x a m p l e s of this fact c a n be confirmed by examining the nine Theotokia

within this work. T h e word "adpKa" a p p e a r s o n c e , while " a a p K w 0 £ V T a " also

a p p e a r s only one time. A s w a s shown in earlier hymns, iconodulic

language is much d e c r e a s e d here; the remaining Theotokia are pious pleas

for intercession by the Mother of G o d .

T h e canon o p e n s with praise for the b l e s s e d , God-bearing loannikios by a

choir of heavenly v o i c e s , who faithfully honour him for being a luminary in

Schiro, J . and Kominis, A. (eds.) (1972) C a n o n e s vol. Ill - Novembris Canon of St. loannikios
by Methodios of Constantinople (Instituto di Studi Bizantini e Neoellenici - Universita di Roma),
Roma, pp. 134 - 145.
2 6 0
Peter the Monk, "Life of St. loannikios", p. 245, in the introduction.
2 6 1
Cunningham, The Life of Michael the Synkellos - Text, Translation and Commentary, pp. 102
- 103.
2 6 2
Peter the Monk, "Life of St. loannikios", p. 339, p. 340 and p. 344.

340
their time. T h e Methodian style quickly b e c o m e s apparent in the s e c o n d

ode. T h e patriarch u s e s in one s t a n z a four forms of the G r e e k word

"knowledge or making known".

" I a j i E V ae avf-niyviiima, TTaTEp'IwavviKiE,

^TTiyvQVT£g tin y v f i v a i TO d v a i u-rrep TO y v f i v m

„ r 264
ae.

Lauding the monastic life, Methodios refers to the models of the monastic

2 6 5
ideal, St. J o h n the Forerunner and Elijah the Thesbite a s examples

followed by loannikios. Methodios comments that loannikios s h a r e s the

2 6 6
s a m e name a s the Forerunner and the s a m e holy calling.

G o d ' s calling moved the thrice - b l e s s e d loannikios,

he a c c e p t e d to walk the s a m e path a s Elijah, a

2 6 7
monastic in the desert.

In the fourth ode, Methodios explains an event in the life of the Saint

2 6 8
loannikios, who a p p e a r s to have "deserted" from the a r m y . Mango in his

article c o m m e n t s on this theory citing the different v e r s i o n s in the Vitae,

Schiro and Kominis (eds.) Canon of St loannikios by Methodios of Constantinople, p. 134,

o e a i v l v K C L l
lines 1 - 5 : " 'kpo^uvoiQ x P ^ C Qeotydpov daiov, T O V (|><i>o"TT]pa ToTg x p ^ ° ? ^M<f »
Ti^rjawnEv m a r a i ; 'Iwavvdaov."
2 6 4
Ibid., p. 135, lines 31 - 3 5 .
2 6 5
III Kings 17, 1 (LXX).
266
P e t e r the Monk, "Life of St. loannikios", p. 243; Sullivan notes that loannikios is a diminutive
form of the name John. Note how Methodios connects loannikios with St. John the Baptist.
2 6 7
Schiro and Kominis (eds.) Canon of St. loannikios by Methodios of Constantinople, p. 136:
"npdg K^fjaiv joiq n p d y n a a t v E 0 8 O U ( I E V O Q , T<? Ilpo5pd)i(^ 6(i(i)vuuo<; 'HA(q T E ouvSpojiog
dva8£(x0T)5, T p i a ( i d K a p oog K a i ^ 5 ( a r a K a i KXflaig 0 E ( O U Q E ' S E I ^ E V .
2 6 8
Peter the Monk, "Life of St. loannikios", p. 262, Chapter 7.

341
one by Peter and the other by Sabas. He points out that if Sabas is to be

269
believed loannikios most probably "retired" honourably. Notwithstanding,

270
Mango in his conclusion places his faith in the Vita by Peter the M o n k .

This assertion conforms to this stanza of the canon. Methodios not only

gives this incident credence: he elevates the motivation and actions of

loannikios to a theological plain. According to Methodios' account, the saint

did throw down his army shield, but in doing so he took up the sword

against the Devil through his monastic vocation. With his ecstatic faith, the

noble loannikios was able to "sever the heads of headless enemies

2 7 1
[demons]".

The fifth Theotokion is an excellent example of the shift in emphasis by the

Patriarch after the Triumph of Orthodoxy. Listen to his words as he

supplicates the Virgin Mary. She is heralded as more honourable than the

Seraphim, and the most holy Virgin is asked to beseech her Son on behalf

2 7 2
of the salvation of the souls of those who hymn to her.

This verse presents the Virgin not as an agent to representing iconodulic

theological perspective, but rather, she is portrayed in her role as

intercessor and protectress of God's people. The composition continues

honouring loannikios as one lauded by the prayerful faithful because he is

M a n g o , " T h e T w o L i v e s l o a n n i k o s a n d T h e B u l g a r i a n s " , p. 401.

2 7 0
Ibid., p. 404.
2 7 1
S c h i r o a n d K o m i n i s ( e d s . ) Canon of St. loannikios by Methodios of Constantinople, p. 137 -
138: " P(ij>acnTiQ ai) ((xxveig £v n d x q iroAejifwv, £5E(X0TI<; d p i a T E u g Kcrrd T O U 8 i a p 6 * o u , tv
£ K O T C L O E I Tfjg iri'oTEwg a o u (iaxafpqt 5 i a T E | i c i v TOUQ dK£<(>dAoui; e'xQpoug."
2 7 2
Ibid., p. 139, l i n e s 131 - 135: "...T<3v X e p o u p f j i <)>avdaa T i n i u T e p a , napQeve navujivriTE
Tip^aPeuE Tt? ui«v o o u o u o a i t a g <]>uxdg T<3V l i j i v o u v T u v at."

342
the embodiment of Orthodoxy. He has taken the singular way, that of being

273
a solitary, in a straight and unbending fashion so he is worthy of a c c l a i m .

Twice in the next few verses, Methodios reverts to the Song of the Three

2 7 4
Youths in the Furnace to end stanzas. "Praise and exalt Him forever"

275
and Praise ye, the Lord and exalt Him forever. This is the standard

usage for the seventh and eighth odes of a canon at this time period in the

writing of Orthodox hymns.

The last few stanzas describe the characteristics that loannikios exhibited

while on earth. "As the noncorporeal angels give wisdom, a s the forward

276
looking prophets, together with the apostles you daily witnessed the w a y ,

2 7 7
ascetic Father loannikios". Methodios, in his tribute to the monastic

father of his time, praises his spiritual attainments, not his influence on the

contemporary events of the day. The Patriarch looks toward the Kingdom

of Heaven and not the earthly kingdom. He has no doubt that his friend,

loannikios, is a citizen of the Heavenly realm.

Ibid., p. 1 4 0 , l i n e s 1 4 8 - 1 5 1 : " ' f i g KOpog dp0o8<5£wv K a i K a v u v T O O n o v a S i K o O p ( o u , a u

dTTCtp^yicAiTe U T T E P E U X O U T<3V maT<3<; £i)<t>rniouvT(i>v at.

2 7 4
Ibid., p. 1 4 2 , l i n e s 1 9 4 - 196: " U ( I V E T T £ K a i unEpui|)oOTE O U T O V tlq TOOQ aiuivat;

2 7 5
Ibid., p. 1 4 3 l i n e s 2 1 8 - 2 2 0 : " K i i p i o v 0|iV£iT£ K a i unEputpoOTE e l g n d v T a i ; TOUC; a i u v a g . "

2 7 6
Morris, Monks and Laymen in Byzantium 843 - 1118, p. 3 2 : " T h e d y y E ^ i K o i v fh'iv, t h e life of
the a n g e l s , t h e u l t i m a t e g o a l of all m o n a s t i c i s m , a life in w h i c h t h e d e m a n d s of t h e b o d y a n d of t h e
h u m a n will w e r e c o m p l e t e l y s u b o r d i n a t e d to t h o s e of t h e spirit".

2 7 7
S c h i r o a n d K o m i n i s ( e d s . ) Canon of St. loannikios by Methodios of Constantinople., p. 1 4 3 ,
l i n e s 2 3 9 - 2 4 4 : " M E T O T<3V dyy^Awv tbt; dtaapKog a u v E T d y u g , \itrd. TTpo<|>r)T<3v tipoopaiv, a u v T a r n i
dTTOOToAoiQ K a i E V | j d p T u a i v daEpE'pa Tfj p ( g , traTEp daKT|Ta I w a v v i K i E . "

343
 The Idiomelon in Honour of the 42 Martyrs of Amotion

This work is found in the following references, The Menees de toute

278
I'annee; tomos 4, Rome, 1898, p. 145, also catalogued by Follieri. The

2 7 9
text that will be used for this study is from the Menaia month of March.

Unlike many of Methodios' works, the dating of authorship can be estimated

quite closely. The historical record clearly indicates that Amorium was

2 8 0
captured by the Persians in 838. These martyrs were held prisoners for

2 8 1
seven years until their martyrdom on 6 March 845. Therefore it is

reasonable to assume that Methodios wrote this hymn, while he was

Patriarch and after that date.

The rubrics for this hymn in modern usage are quite clear, it is to be sung

during the vesper service of the feast celebrating the memory of these

martyrs on 6 March. Further instructions indicate that this particular

idiomelon by Methodios is only to be chanted if the vespers for the feast fall

on a Saturday. The hymn is chanted in the second tone. The text for the

idiomelon is as follows:

'H ^KK^riaia or\\iepov TTCcvriyupi^ei |iuaTiK(3g, v e a v

aToA^v £v8uaan£vri, wc; TTOp<|>upav KCCI (3uaaov, T d

ai|iaTa TWV v e w v ' A0Ao<f>dpov TOUTOQ yap £v

Follieri, Initia Hymnorum Ecclesiae Graecae, p. 2 9 6 .

2 7 9
T E r A E ( e d . ) Liturgical Books of the Months (MHNAIA TOYXPONOY), p. 2 5 , 6 M a r c h .
2 8 0
T r e a d g o l d , The Byzantine Revival (780-842), p. 3 0 3 . T r e a d g o l d cites the date the P e r s i a n s
left A m o r i o n a f t e r its s a c k i n g , ( 1 5 A u g u s t 8 3 8 ) . T h e 4 2 p r i s o n e r s w e r e t h e n t a k e n to B a g h d a d .
2 8 1
K a z h d a n , A . P. ( e d . ) ( 1 9 9 1 ) The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium (Oxford University P r e s s ) ,
N e w York a n d Oxford, pp. 8 0 0 - 8 0 1 .

344
 euaepeig £K0p£i|mu£VTi, 0ua(av d|awjiov SeKTrjv
Kcct EiidptCTTOv , Xpiar(^ TTpoaTiyayE' Aid viKr|Td^
6 TOUTog TWV TTapdvopwv dva5£i^a<;, Kai
aT£<t)avwaag xai do^daac,, Kai f\\iiv KaTaiT£(i^ov,

2 8 2
T d g auTtov TrpEafteiaiQ T O \ieya ^ £ o g .

The observation that was made concerning the text of The Canon in Honour

of St. loannikios is applicable to this hymn, which was written after the

Triumph of Orthodoxy and it heralds the sacrifice of Christian martyrdom

and victory. Therefore, "the clothing of the Church in a new robe" can be

interpreted a s the icons being returned to the Church. The phrase "most

iniquitious" could very well describe the iconoclasts. The hymn proclaims:

Today, the Church celebrates a mystic feast, She

is dressed in a new robe of porphyry and fine linen
by blood of the young athletes. Nurtured in piety,
She has offered their blameless sacrifice,
acceptable and well pleasing to You O Christ.
Wherefore, O you who did show them to be victors
over the most iniquitous and have crowned and
glorified them, through their supplications send
2 8 3
down upon us Your great mercy.

2 8 2
T E r A E ( e d . ) Liturgical Books of the Months (MHNAIA TOY XPONOY), Month of M a r c h , pp. 2 5
-26.
283
MHNAIA - Liturgical Books of the Months, p. 4 5 .

345
 Poem from and to the Graptoi

This short composition is not listed in any of the catalogues of Methodian

2 8 4
works. It was written during the time of his imprisonment. According to

this account of Methodios' incarceration, the following communications of

salutation and reply were exchanged between Theodore and Theophanes

Graptoi and the already captive Methodios.

The Graptoi wrote:

T(3 ^toVTl V£KpQ KOCt VEKpQ C,U)X]$6pty,
OIKOOVTI ir\v yf\v Kai TTOAOOVTI TOV TTOAOV,
ypaTrroi ypd<f>ouai 5ea|iioi JQ Seajaiq).

Methodios responded:
TdXc, Ta1g PipAoiaiv oupavwv KATiaiypd<|)oig
Kai Trpdg jiETwrra aw<J)pdvwg iany\ievoiq
2 8 5
rrpoaeiTTSv 6 ^wOaTrroc; wg auv6£0nioig.

This short exchange is rich in theology and commentary on their situation.

This translation is offered to attempt to convey the spirit of the dialogue

between these iconodulic prisoners of conscience.

The Graptoi wrote:

To the dead-living man and the life-bearing dead
man,
To one who lives in the earth, and haunts the
heavens,
The branded captives write to the captured.

2 8 4
B e k k e r (ed.) Chronicle of Symeon Magister., p p . 6 4 2 - 6 4 3 , c i t e d in C u n n i n g h a m , The Life of
Michael the Synkellos - Text, Translation and Commentary, p. 1 6 1 .
2 8 5
C u n n i n g h a m , The Life of Michael the Synkellos - Text, Translation and Commentary, p. 1 6 1 .

346
 Methodios responded:

For the heavenly images you are called Branded

Imprinted on soberly imprinted foreheads
Said the one buried alive to [his] co-fettered.

Unpublished Works

The following few works of Methodios have previously not been published.

The manuscripts were referenced and cited in various catalogues. They

were made available for this study in reproduction form. My thanks to the

various institutions, which assisted in this endeavour.

A Canon of Supplication and Confession to the Theotokos

This work was catalogued by Papadopoulos-Kerameus, Hierosolymitike

Bibliotheke, tomos 2, Petrograd, in 1894, on p. 547. In 1892, C . Sakkelion

identified the manuscript and catalogued it in the National Library of

2 8 6
Greece. The transcription of this mss will be used for this enquiry. As

with other compositions of Methodios, the date of writing is not clear. The

attribution does state "a work of Patriarch Methodios", but it is not evident

whether this is the later notation of a scribe or a partial dating. There does

not appear to be polemic or anti-iconoclastic language within the canon.

The canon is an extremely personal and revealing assertion of Methodios'

feelings of weakness and failures. Constantly within the text, the state of

M e t h o d i o s of C o n s t a n t i n o p l e (n.d.) Canon of Supplication and Repentance to the Theotokos,

in Catalogue of the National Library of Greece n u m b e r 7 2 8 , A t h e n s , p p . 1 3 3 ff., p. 1 3 3 [folio 7 8 ] .

347
wretchedness of Methodios as a penitent is emphasised, and there is a call

for the aid of the pure Virgin Mother. Although this is a stylistic technique in

penitential canons, one cannot help but think that Methodios felt these

sentiments personally. The rubrics direct this hymn to be sung in the

second plagal tone.

The canon begins with Methodios declaring his wretchedness and as a

result, he states he is lost and afraid. He laments his life of countless sins

2 8 7
and acknowledging his state, asking for the help of the pure Lady. He

declares he is weary, and beseeches, where does he begin to recount his

unspeakable and wicked failings? The supplicant asks for pity at the end

288
wondering what he has b e c o m e . Is Methodios nearing the end of his life

or is this a verbalisation of his trepidation at the thought of the Last

Judgement? Methodios laments that he has soiled the pure image and his

high-minded judgement, both given to him by God. He bemoans that he

2 8 9
has lived the life of a reprobate, through his thoughts and his actions.

2 9 0
Methodios goes on to avow that he has defiled the temple of his body,

and declares most mortal men tremble when entering God's temple, but he

2 8 7
Ibid., in folio [78], p. 1, l i n e s 7 - 1 2 : " UQc, \iou 0pr|vijaw T O V p ( o v T O V punapov, Kai TO
nArj0r| S t ' o n o i v a TI3V d\i£jp(ov (iou K O K W V T(6E f(;ayy£i'Aw a o i d y v i i , dnopai Kai 6£iAi(3, dAAd
POT|0EI HOI..."

2 8 8
Ibid., in folio [78], p. 1, l i n e s 13 - 18: " n d 0 £ v v u v d p ! ; o j i a i Myeiv T O Tiovripd, K a i S E I V O \iou
-
TTTaianaTa, 6 TaAai'nwpot; £ y w olnoi TI y £ v r j a o | i a i AOITTOV, dAAd S s a n o i v a d y v r j , npd TEAOUC;
ofKTEipov."
2 8 9
Ibid., in folio [ 7 8 ] , p p . 2 - 3 , lines 1 7 - 2 0 , l i n e s 1 a n d 2: "To KOT' EiKdva (iou dyvi},
K O T E p p u n w a a o f j i o i , ui)»r|Ad<t>povi yvu)(irj K a 8 ' 6jioidTT|Ta y a p K a i E'pyty K a i AoyiaptJ T O U dauTou
f n p a ^ a T O dTOTra."

2 9 0
1 C o r . 6, 1 9 .

348
on the other hand shamelessly enters, as a profligate. He recounts that

Adam transgressed, even though he had the commandment of the Creator

and for this he suffered exile from Paradise. Methodios cries that he can

only lament his abysmal failings as a transgressor, an apostate of Christ.

2 9 2
He declares that the fires of his passion curse his flesh and catalogues a

myriad of his sins and sufferings, evermindful of his unworthiness. Behold,

he comes to the Chaste One with much fear and beseeches the Theotokos

293 2 9 4
to strengthen him with w i s d o m . This segment of the canon ends with

the following request from Methodios:

Receive now the choir of archangels, the army of

the host of heaven of my creator the company of
apostles and prophets, martyrs and blessed
hieromartyrs and intercede to God, for me, you
295
who are called the Pure O n e .

How does this canon fit into the entire Methodian corpus? There are some

stimulating and valid questions, which could be asked from the introduction

to this hymn. Was this the cry of a young Methodios stricken with such

extreme guilt from an unknown sin or passion or the sorrow of an elderly

M e t h o d i o s of C o n s t a n t i n o p l e Canon of Supplication and Repentence to the Theotokos, in folio

[78], p. 4 , l i n e s 7 - 1 2 : "Nctdv E u d A u v a , KaK<3<; T O O awu(ct)-ro<; K a i vadv TOU K(up(o)u dvircp
P p o T o i , Tp£\iovjEc; e i a ^ p x o v T a r £yw 5 E O X \ I O I dvai5<3<;, d a n o p E u o t i a i 6 d a w r o c ; . "
2 9 2
Ibid., in folio [ 7 8 ] , p. 7 a p p e a r s t h r o u g h o u t t h e entire p a g e e n c o m p a s s i n g s e v e r a l s t a n z a s .

2 9 3 ai
Ibid., in folio [ 7 8 ] , p. 1 0 , l i n e s 11 - 16: " ' I S o O T T p o a £ p x ° H > a o i n a v d x p a v T E tyofiii) noAAd},
Kai trdOty TIIV laxuv EtriaTduEvoc;, Tfjg TroAAfjs aou vpto^eiaq "6 SOOAOQ aou- ue'yicrTa yap
l a x u [ e i ] 5ETIOI<; S E a r r o i v a . . . "

2 9 4
T h e m a n u s c r i p t r e f l e c t s t h e mid-ninth c e n t u r y c a n o n form; t h e r e a r e only eight o d e s .

2 9 5
M e t h o d i o s of C o n s t a n t i n o p l e Canon of Supplication and Repentence to the Theotokos, in folio
[78], p. 10 l i n e s 1 9 a n d 2 0 , p. 11 l i n e s 21 - 27: ...Xopoug trapdAaPE d p x a y y ^ A w v v u v K a i TTIV
TTATJGIW T U V d v u aTpaTEi>|idT0)v K T ( O T O U p o u , dirooTdAwv 5ijnoug i£ K a i T<3V irpo^TiTwv, (idpTupai;
Kai daioug IspoudpTupag Kai n p £ o P £ ( a v Tiotaov dyvr^, U T I E P E U O U irpdi; 0 ( E d ) v . . . "

349
infirmed Methodios facing death and fearful of God's judgement because of

his passed life? These questions may never be answered, because there is

no support for either supposition within the text.

Penitential Canon of Methodios of Constantinople

The next composition of Methodios is also a canon, which decries the state

of sin of the author. It was catalogued by G. de Andres in Madrid, in the

2 9 6
year 1965. The monastery was good enough to furnish a copy of the

manuscript, but unfortunately, the quality of the manuscript is extremely

poor. There are numerous lacunae and the canon in its preserved form is

incomplete. The work is an acrostic poem, which the acrostic notation

2 9 7
spells out "Lament your life." The hymn is sung in the fourth plagal tone.

The introduction declares it laments the miserable pitiable life of Methodios.

There are some subtle differences between this canon and the previous

one analysed. The darker and more sombre tones are not as prevalent in

this work even though he speaks openly of his battle with sin, his polluted

life and corrupted will. He declares he has struggled with these failings

2 9 8 2 9 9
since he was young and asks the Theotokos for her intercession.

There is a hint in the language of a man who has begun to deal with his sin.

M e t h o d i o s of C o n s t a n t i n o p l e (n.d.) Penitential Canon, in Catalogo de los griegos de la Real

Biblioteca de El Escorial, M a d r i d , p p . 3 3 3 ff.
2 9 7
"0pr|'vTi a o v p ( o " .
2 9 8
Methodios of C o n s t a n t i n o p l e , Penitential Canon, in O d e 1, l i n e s 9 - 1 2 : " 'r| ^wr) jiou
T p i a a ^ 0 ( a K a i 6 B(og dvayr|Q K a i 6 Tpdnog p^pr)^og, K a i Trpoa(peai<; 5i£<t>0ap(iEvri...N£'av d y w v
i^Midav."
2 9 9
Ibid., in O d e 1, line 1 9 .

350
He acknowledges that he is repressing the lust of the soul and body. The

weight of his contest is being lifted toward God the Saviour and true Lord

3 0 0
Christ. Generally, this opus is penitential, but it possesses an element

of hope and faith in salvation.

Stichera

The last two works are listed as being unpublished but catalogued in a

3 0 1
study of the history of the Triodion. After cross-referencing notations in

this enquiry, it is evident that both hymns have been published. In fact, not

only have they been published in Greek, but they have also been translated

into English. They are hymns sung during the Great and Holy Thursday

Mattin Service. The confusion has occurred, primarily because no

attribution is noted ascribing the hymns to Patriarch Methodios, in

302
Triodion . The translated text is as follows:

Today Judas lays aside his outward pretence of

love for the poor, and openly displays his greed for
money. No longer does he take thought for the
needy. He offers now for sale, not the oil of myrrh
brought by the sinful woman, but the Myrrh from

3 0 0
Ibid., in O d e 3 , l i n e s 12 - 13: " B d p o g nTaiaudTwv dvcueiv npog TOV a((i)Tif)pa, TOV (5VTIO<;
K(upio)v Kai 0 ( E O ) V
3 0 1
A r c h i m a n d r i t e K a l l i s t o s ( 1 9 3 4 ) " H i s t o r i c a l S t r u c t u r e of the Triodion - in G r e e k , " in Nea Sion,
V o l . t o m o s 2 9 T h e s s a l o n i c a , p. 5 6 3 .
3 0 2
TPIQAIONKATANYKTIKON, p. 3 9 2 .

351
 heaven, and he takes the pieces of silver. He runs
to the Jews and says to the transgressors: 'What
will ye give me if I deliver Him up to you?'

0 avarice of the traitor! He reckons the sale

profitable, and, agreeing with the wishes of the
purchasers, he concludes the transaction. He
does not dispute about the price but sells the Lord
like a runaway slave; for it is the custom of thieves
to throw away what is precious. So the disciple
casts that which is holy to the dogs, and the
madness of avarice fills him with fury against his
own Master. Let us flee from such folly, and cry:
3 0 3
O longsuffering Lord, glory to Thee.

There is very little explanation necessary, primarily owing to the excellent

translation of Mother Mary and Bishop Kallistos Ware. One observation

might be of help to those unfamiliar to the use of "today" in Orthodox

liturgical language. The concept of time, in Christ, is one not bound by

conventional definitions. The transforming of linear historical time into the

immediacy and present is a factor of liturgical time, kairos, which places the

3 0 4
events of the Church, out of history and into now.

The next hymn by Methodios is from the same service. The text is as

follows:

3 0 3
The Lenten Triodion, pp. 555 - 556.
3 0 4
Mantzaridis, G . (1995) Time and Man, trans. J . Vulliamy (St. Tikhon's S e m i n a r y P r e s s ) , South
C a n a a n , P a , p. 7 7 ff; s e e e s p e c i a l l y c h a p t e r s o n T r a n s f i g u r i n g T i m e a n d L i t u r g i c a l T i m e .

352
 O ye faithful, let none who is uninstructed in the
Mystery draw near to the table of the Lord's
Supper; let none approach deceitfully as Judas.
For he received his portion, yet he betrayed the
Bread. In outward appearance he was a disciple,
yet in reality he was present as a murderer. He
rejoiced with the Jews, though he sat at supper
with the apostles. He kissed in hatred, and with his
kiss he sold the God and Saviour of our souls, who
3 0 5
has redeemed us from the curse.

The hymn presents the events of Holy Thursday in a very personal manner.

The image of one of the disciples of our Lord, one so close; betraying the

Master is offered not as a piece of history; but as an act of personal

faithless perfidy.

There are a few works of Methodios, which were not discussed but will be

listed here. The primary reason for not studying them is the obscurity of the

reference or an error within the reference making them unavailable and

preventing their investigation. They are as listed below:

In Constantinum et Helenam

This work is an unknown type of work, but it appears to be a homily on Sts.

Constantine and Helen. The reference is W. Chris and M. Paranikas

Anthologiae Graeca carminum christianorum, p. 99.

The Lenten Triodion, p. 5 5 6 .

353
 The Canon in honour of Daniel and the three youths in the furnace

This hymn could not be located because the thesis in which it was

referenced is not available. The issuing school is unknown. Consulting the

journal articles by the same author did not yield any concrete results. The

reference is listed as L. Bernardini, Metodio I Patriarca di Constantinopli

(843 - 847) Vincitore del II Iconoclasmo, Roma, (1970), [typed thesis].

Two Theotokia

This work is catalogued in T. Toscani et I. Cozza, De Immaculata Deiparae

conceptione hymnologia graecorum Roma, 1862, p. 112 n.23, p.178 n. 11.

Paracletic Canon [ unpublished]

This composition is referenced in E. Tomadakes, Epteris Etaireias

Byzantinon Spoudon, Tomos 29 - 30, (1972 - 73), p. 127 n. 11. There

appears to be an error in the reference and a search in Greece failed to

uncover this citation.

As the works of Methodios are reviewed, some observations can be

applied, keeping in mind the criteria that were posed in the introduction to

this chapter. It might be asked, what has been revealed about Methodios,

the man, by examining his compositions? There are characteristics that

have become evident, which are appropriate to a description of Methodios.

354
He has been shown to be a poet, a theologian and an educated man of his

time. He is all of these, yet not exclusively any one of these. He struggled

with sin, and exhibited guilt and cumpunction for his failings. He was a man

of deep faith and prayer. He intensely loved his friends, but also felt the

need to document his times. Methodios was committed to a cause and to

his fellow sufferers for Christ. As was discussed after the sections on the

Vitae, Methodios was extremely aware of the historical responsibility of

what he considered to be the Orthodox position. They had not only

defeated their opponents, but the opponents of Christ. He was

unshakeable in the opinion that it was the duty of the iconodules to assure

that the heresy never returned to pollute the Church again. To this end,

Methodios used all the tools at his disposal including the literary ones.

Within his writings, Methodios utilised his skills to provide a forum for his

philosophy and points of view. The largest canvass on which Methodios

wrote was that of the faith. Whether in polemical writings, poetry, history,

liturgical hymns, encomia or vitae, one thing is demonstrable, above all,

Methodios was a man of the Church.

355
 TUR.K.ESTAN
Tashkent
ia(tonlt) H
is .

Ancyra
(Ankara) Lfs
•Pugamum "
Snwma l Y P I A CAPPADOCXA
J^IBTUT) .SankslSardisJf- r

Cauana
to" * b
(Kaywri) .Arabissua Manyrcpoiis
Trallu Iconium

Milieu Tvan, Amida

(DtyartaliirJ
•(MarasJ

LYCIA LaktUrmU
> U ' A* /-. .Adana
Phoenicus Carrhat N\abi!
(Harran)
Nfimveh

(AJeppo

^Salami*;
A _ Emuxa
(Raid • (Horns)
SYR.1 A
•hVliopolis (Baalbek)

M i d i t t r r a n t a n "Damascus Baghdad
Ctxsiphon

Akxand Htbrcr
^ J O R O A A S I A MINOR and the MIDDLE CAST

.Petri

Figure 7: - Map of Asia Minor

356
 Chapter Six

CONCLUSIONS AND T H E METHODIAN L E G A C Y

O Methodios, hierarch of God, in you we recognise

a firm pillar of the Faith, a rampart of sacred doctrine,
a defender of piety, a dwelling of purity, a precious
flask filled with the myrrh of the Spirit, a repository of
teachings, upon whom rests the
1
Church of Christ!

Remarkably, these words written by an unknown hymnographer about

Patriarch Methodios capture much of the essence of the man, who was

described in the introduction as a figure wrapped in the clouds of time. His

life was extraordinary. He lived in a period in history, which called for

considerable courage. He answered duress with resolute determination.

His principles were not only guiding lights, they were convictions of faith.

The easiest and most expedient course of action for all the leading

iconodules would have been to acquiesce and abdicate their tenets. This

was a course of action that none of them chose.

Methodios' life, his literary compositions and the chronicles of his

contemporaries reveal a portrait of an extremely complex man, a man with

many gifts, yet a man who felt greatly unworthy, as he viewed his own sins.

In spite of these sensibilities, he revealed himself, in almost a cathartic way,

1
H y m n from t h e v e s p e r s c e l e b r a t i n g S t . M e t h o d i o s I, P a t r i a r c h of C o n s t a n t i n o p l e . S u n g in t o n e
4.

357
in his works. Methodios made enemies, some by his rigid opposition to

heresy and some through his efforts to cleanse the Church of any vestiges

of iconoclasm.

The resolution of the iconoclastic heresy was not the work of one person.

The defenders of images became advocates of theological teachings which

were the culmination of centuries of definition. They did not view

themselves in isolation, but in continuity with the Tradition of the Apostles,

the saints, the martyrs and the Fathers. Each of the iconodulic Patriarchs,

Germanos, Tarasios, Nikephoros and Methodios vigorously safeguarded

their sacred trust. They upheld the role set aside for the hierarchs, "guard

the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within

2
us."

This element of hierarchical responsibility was a great influence on the spirit

of Methodios. His actions were resolute and, in a large part, dependent on

his concept of his duty to the Church. It was his obligation that the heresy

of iconoclasm would never again threaten God's Church and he took this

stewardship soberly. Methodios judged others by the high standards that

he kept himself. In no small way, his shepherding of the Church provided a

time for the re-establishing of a strengthened Orthodoxy. Images were

brought back into the Church, She was re-adorned in icons but more

significantly there would not be a return to the days of schism and doctrinal

errors of iconoclasm.

2
2 T i m . 1, 14.

358
 The Methodian Legacy

For Christians, since the first Sunday of the Triumph of Orthodoxy, the

definition that Christ is at one time, fully God and fully man is an essential

teaching of the Faith. The reality of the Incarnation has been secured. The

contemporary Orthodox theologian, John Chryssavgis has written:

God was made flesh (John 1, 14); to claim

otherwise is to undermine the fullness [of] the
Incarnation and to deny Christ's humanity. The
painting of icons, therefore, is not an incidental act
of devotion or a pious option, but a necessary
expression of the reality of both God and the
3
world.

The icon's message is at once, beauty and theology, but the beauty is not

of this world; it is a transcendent reflection of the Kingdom of God. For

Orthodoxy, the teaching that the faithful who have put on Christ by their

4
baptism have, in Him, the potential to "partake of the divine nature" is a

basis for their spiritual life in the Church. The images of Christ, the

Theotokos and the saints are the actuality of life transfigured in Christ.

5
"Behold I make all things new." This is the promise of the icon; this is the

splendour of theology in colour. Ultimately, this is the legacy that Patriarch

Methodios has bequeathed and it can be summarised with these words:

3
Chryssavgis, J . (1999) Beyond the Shattered Image (Light and Life Publishing Co.),
Minneapolis, MN p. 123.
4
2 Peter 1, 4.
5
Rev. 21, 5.

359
 This is faith of the Apostles, this is the faith of the
Fathers, this is the faith of the Orthodox, this is the
6
faith which sustains the Christian Oikoumene ...

6
Geanakoplos, D. J . (1984) Byzantium - Church, Society, and Civilization Seen through
Contemporary Eyes, (University of Chicago Press), Chicago, p. 158.

360
 1
Figure 8: - Methodios the Confessor, Patriarch of Constantinople (843 - 8 4 7 )

1
Treadgold, W. The Byzantine Revival (780-842), p. 377, A drawing made between 1847 and 1849 by
Gaspare Fossati of a mosaic in St. Sophia, Constantinople, that is now lost but was probably of the ninth
century. (Photo: Archivio Cantonale, Bellinzona).

361
 Epilogue

To the Orthodox Christian the reality of the icon is a reality beyond reality.

It is at once a reminder, a promise and a prayer. The image has its place

only within the liturgical essence of the faith and the hearts of the faithful.

Archimandrite Vasileios of the Holy Mountain summarises the true meaning

of the icon in this way:

Time and nature are made new: worldly space is

transfigured; perspective, which puts man in the
position of an outside observer, no longer exists.
The believer, the pilgrim, is a guest at the
Wedding. He is inside, and sees the whole world
from the inside. History is interpreted differently:
the events of divine Economy are not past and
closed, but present and active. They embrace us,
they save us. What we have in the icon is not a
neutral faithful historical representation, but a
dynamic liturgical transformation. In iconography,
the events of salvation are not interpreted
historically but express mystically and embodied
liturgically; they interpenetrate with one another.
They become a witness to the "different way of life"
which has broken through the bounds set by
corruption. They invite us to a spiritual banquet,
1
here, now.

1
Archimandrite Vasileios, (1984) Hymn of Entry - Liturgy and Life in the Orthodox Church,
Contemporary Greek Theologians, trans. E . Briere (St. Vladimir's Seminary Press), Crestwood, NY,
p. 82.

362
 Appendix I

The Works against the Studites as classified by Darrouzes are compared

with the other sources:

• Fragment A is found in Mai, Spicilegium romanum, tomos vi, p. xxii

and (partially supplemented) in Mai, Script. N. collectio, tomos iv,

p. 168; P G tomos c, cols. 1294 - 1296; also in Byzantinische

Zeitschrift, tomos xviii, (1909), pp. 49 - 50. This composition is a

portion of the segment labelled, "Premiere Lettre aux Stoudites" by

1
Darrouzes.

• Fragment B is a modicum of work, which begins " 'ETTKTKETTTEOV

5 E . . . " , it can be found in Pitra, p. 353 (note 3). In Darrouzes' article,

2
this is an element of the "Seconde lettre aux Stoudites".

It should be noted that although the passage begins with slightly

differing wording; very quickly it reverts to a word for word parallel text to

the Pitra version.

1
Darrouzes, "Le patriarche Methode contre les iconoclastes et les studites", pp. 30 - 38, s e e
specifically the excerpt on pp. 37 - 39.
2
Ibid., pp. 42 - 43, begins: " 'ETTIOTCTITTTEOV otfv T d . . . "

363
 • Fragment C , which begins: " 'O y d p liccKdpiog TTaTrip..." can be

found in Pitra, Scr. n. col. p. 255. In his study, Darrouzes labels this

"fragment 5"and is recounted on p. 55 of his monograph.

• Fragment D begins: " Xu novaxdc; d " is found in Mai, Sp. rom.,

tomos vi, p. xxii; PG tomos c, cols. 1297 & 1298. Darrouzes names

this "Fragment 8". It can be found on page 57 of this work.

• Fragment E can be found in Mai, Sp. Rom., tomos vi, p. xxii, P G ,

tomos c , cols. 1293 - 1294. This passage starts with the phrase "

Mr) a u v £ a T i a a 0 £ . . . " Labelled "fragment 4", it is on page 55.

• Fragment F which begins with the phrase: "npd<; ouv iooq

ITOUSIWTCCC;". This is an extract from the synodical act disciplining

the Studites. It is preserved in Allatius, De Methodiis, p. 377. PG,

tomos c, cols. 1296b - 1297b; Pitra, p. 361 has the complete text.

Darrouzes compiles this text as a portion of what he classifies as

Methodios' second letter to the Studites; but he takes pains to

3
differentiate it from the remaining body of the letter.

3
Ibid., p. 53; s e e note 29.

364
 Appendix II

List of figures

Figure 1: - The Icon of the First Sunday of Orthodoxy iii

Figure 2: - Sts. Nikephoros and Theodore Reconciled

Emperor Theophilos and Iconoclasts 56
Figure 3: - John the Grammarian Whitewashing Icon
of Christ 61
Figure 4: - Map of Constantinople 71
Figure 5: - St. Sophia Cathedral 80
Figure 6: - Map of Balkan Peninsula 90
Figure 7: - Map of Asia Minor 356
Figure 8: - Methodios the Confessor, Patriarch of Constantinople 361

365
 1
Lists of Patriarchs, Popes and Emperors
From 700 - 886 AD

Patriarchs of Constantinople

Cyrus 706 •712

John VI 712 •715
Germanos I 715 •730
Anastasios 730 •754
Constantine II 754-•766
Nicetas I 766 •780
Paul IV 780-•784
Tarasios 784-•806
Nikephoros I 806 •- 815
Theodotos Melissenos
Cassiteras 815 •- 821
Antonios I Cassimatas 821 •• 837
John VII Grammatikos 837-• 843
Method ios I 843-• 847
Ignatios 847-• 858
Photios 858- •867
Ignatios (again) 867-•877
Photios (again) 877-- 886

Popes of Rome

John VI 701 - 705

John VII 705 - 707
Sisinnius 708
Constantine I 708-715
Gregory II 715-731
Gregory III 731 - 741
Zacharias 741 - 752
(Stephen II 752)
Stephen III (II) 752 - 757
Paul I 757 - 767
Constantine 767 - 769
(Philip 768)
Stephen IV 768 - 772
Hadrian I 772 - 795
Leo III 795 - 816
Stephen V 816 - 817
Paschali 817 - 824
Eugenius II 824 - 827
Valentine 827
Gregory IV 827 • 844

1
Hussey, The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire., pp. xxi - xxvi

366
(John 844)
Sergius II 844 - 847
Leo IV 847 - 855
Benedict III 855 - 858
(Anastasius 855, d. c. 880)
Nicholas I 858 - 867
Hadrian II 867 - 872

Emperors of Byzantium

Tiberius III 698 • 705

Justinian II (again) 705 - 711
Philippicos Bardanes 711 • 713
Anastasios II 713 • 715
Theodosioslll 715 • 717
Leo III 717 ••741
Constantine V 741 ••775
Leo IV 775 ••780
Constantine VI 780 •797
Irene 797 • 802
Nikephoros 1 802 • 811
Stauracios 811
Michael Rangabe 811 • 813
Leo V 813 - 820
Michael II 820 - 829
Theophilos 829 - 842
Michael III [with Empress Theodora
as regent until 858] 842 • 867
Basil 1 867 - 886

367
 Bibliography

"Life of Sts. David, Symeon and George" (n.d.) in Byzantine Defenders of

Images - Eight Saints in English Translation (1998) ed. A. M. Talbot, trans.
D. Domingo - Foraste (Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection),
Washington, pp. 142 - 241.

MHNAIA - Liturgical Books of the Months (1995) (Sophia Press), Newton

Centre, MA.

st
The Festal Menaion 1 edition (1969) trans. Mother Mary and
Archimandrite Kallistos Ware (Faber and Faber Ltd.), London.

The Lenten Triodion (1977) trans. Mother Mary and Archimandrite Kallistos
Ware (Faber and Faber Ltd.), London.

"Sanctus Methodius - Constantinopolitanus patriarcha" (1857-1866) in

Patrologiae cursus completus: Series graeca, tomos. c, ed. J . - P. Migne,
Paris, cols. 1231-1326.

"Synodicon of Orthodoxy - in English translation" (2000) The True Vine,

Spring Edition, pp. 1 - 108.

TPIOAIONKA TANWTIKON (1900) (K. Antoniadi), Athens.

Afinogenov, D. (1997a) Constantinopolitan Patriarchate- The Iconoclastic

Crisis in Byzantium (784 - 847) - in Russian (Indrink), Moscow.

Afinogenov, D. (1997b) "KQNSTANTINOYnOAIS E I I I Z K O n O N E X E I : Part II

- From the Second Outbreak of Iconoclasm to the Death of Methodios",
Erytheia, 17, pp. 4 3 - 7 1 .

Afinogenov, D. (1996) "K^NSTANTINOYnOAIL E n i S K O n O N E X E I : Part III

- The Great Purge of 843: A Re-Examination," In AEIMQN- Studies
Presented to Leinert Ryden on his Sixty - Fifth Birthday, vol. 6, ed. J . O.
Rosenqvist, (Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis - Studia Byzantina Upsaliensia),
Uppsala, pp. 79 - 91.

Alexakis, A. (1996) Codex Parisinus Graecus 1115 and Its Archetype,

Dumbarton Oaks Studies (Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection),
Washington.

Alexander, P. J . (1953) "The Iconoclastic Council of St. Sophia (815) and its
Definition (Horos)", DOP, vol. 7, pp. 37 - 65.

Alexander, P.J. (1958) Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople -

Ecclesiastical Policy and Image Worship in the Byzantine Empire (Oxford at
the Clarendon Press), Oxford.

368
 Anagnostopoulos, B. (1957) "BIOE TOY K2ANNOY TOY AAMAZKHNOY,"
In OPQOAOEIA, vol. 32, pp. 486 - 494.

Anastos, M. V. (1968) "Leo Ill's Edict against the Images in the Year 726 -
27 and the Italo-Byzantine Relations between 726 and 730," In Polycordia.
Festschrift Franz Dolger III (3rd edition), ed. P. Wirth, Amsterdam, pp. 5 - 41.

Archimandrite Kallistos (1934) "Historical Structure of the Triodion - in

Greek," in Nea Sion, tomos 29, Thessalonica, pp. 563.

Archimandrite Vasileios (1984) Hymn of Entry - Liturgy and Life in the

Orthodox Church, trans. E. Briere (St. Vladimir's Seminary Press),
Crestwood, NY (Contemporary Greek Theologians no. 1).

Arranz, M. (1990) "La « D i a t a x i s » du patriarche Methode pour la

reconciliation des Apostats", Orientalia Christiana Periodica, vol. 56 - no. II,
pp. 283 - 322.

Athanasius (1980) The Life of Anthony and the Letter to Marcellinus, trans.
R. Gregg (Paulist Press), New York, Ramsey, Toronto (The Classics of
Western Spirituality).

Auzepy, M. - F. (1997) La Vie d'Etienne le Jeune par Etienne le Diacre,

Birmingham Byzantine and Ottoman Monographs, trans. M. - F. Auzepy
(Ashgate Lmt. in the Variorum Series), Aldershot, Hampshire, UK.

Auzepy, M. - F. (1988) "Le Place des Moines a Nicee II (787)", Byzantion,

tome Iviii, pp. 5 - 21.

Auzepy, M. - F. (1990) "La Destruction de L'lcone du Christ de la Chalce

par Leon III: propagande ou realite?" Byzantion, tome Ix, pp. 445 - 492.

Barnard, L. (1975) "The Theology of Images," in Iconoclasm -Papers given

at the Ninth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, eds. A. Bryer and J .
Herrin (Centre for Byzantine Studies - University of Birmingham),
Birmingham, UK, pp. 7 - 13.

Barnard, L. and Bryer, A. (1975) "The Paulicians and Iconoclasm +

*Excursus on Mannanalis, Samosata of Armenia and Paulician Geography,"
In Iconoclasm - Papers given at the Ninth Spring Symposium of Byzantine
Studies, eds. A. Bryer and J . Herrin (Centre for Byzantine Studies - University
of Birmingham), Birmingham, UK, pp. 75 - 83, *excursus pp.83 - 92.

Barnard, L. W. (1974) The Graeco-Roman and Oriental Background of the

Iconoclastic Controversy, Byzantina Neerlandica ( E . J . Brill), Leiden.

Baynes, N. H. (1959) "Idolatry and the Early Church," in Byzantine Studies

and Other Essays (University of London The Athlone Press), London, pp. 116
- 143.

369
 Beck, H. G. (1959) Theologische Literatur Im Byzantine Reich, Handbuch
Im Rahmen des Handbuchs der Altertumswissenschaft (C.H. Beck), Munich.

Bekker, I. (ed.) (1838) Chronicle of Symeon Magister (Weberi), Bonnae.

Bekker, I. (ed.) (1838) Chronographia Theophanes Continuatus (Weberi),

Bonnae.

Bekker, I. (ed.) (1838/1839) Chronicle of Georgios Cedrenus (Weberi),

Bonnae.

Bekker, I. (ed.) (1838) "Scriptor Incertus de Leone Armeno," Paris.

Bernardini, L. (1977) "Un lllustre Siracusano: Metodio I Patriarca di

Constantinopli (843 - 847) Vincitore del II Iconoclasmo", Oriente Christiano,
vol. 17(1), pp. 4 2 - 6 6 .

Brightman, F. E. and Hammond, C . E. (eds.) (1896) Liturgies Eastern and

Western (Clarendon Press), Oxford.

Bryer, A. and Herrin, J . (eds.) (1975) Iconoclasm - Papers given at the

Ninth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies (University of Birmingham
Press), Birmingham, UK.

Canart, P. (1979) "Le Patriarche Methode de Constantinople Copiste a

Rome", Palaeographica Diplomatica et Archivistica - Studi in onore di Giulio
Battelli, pp. 343 - 354.

Chryssavgis, J . (1998) The Way of the Fathers - Exploring the Patristic

Mind (Patriarchal Institute for Patristic Studies), Thessaloniki (Analecta
Vlatadon no 62).

Chryssavgis, J . (1999) Beyond the Shattered Image (Light and Life

Publishing Co.), Minneapolis, MN.

Congar, Y. (1966) Tradition and Traditions An historical and theological

essay, trans. M. Naseby and T. Rainborough (Burns and Oats), London.

Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (1829 - 1830) De Ceremoniis - Aulae

Byzantinae, C B , Bonn, Bude and Paris.

Cross, F. L. and Livingstone, E. A. (eds.) (1974) The Oxford Dictionary of

the Christian Church (Oxford University Press), Oxford, UK.

Cunningham, M. B. (1991) The Life of Michael the Synkellos - Text,

Translation and Commentary, M. B. Cunningham, 1st. edition (Belfast
Byzantine Enterprises, Queen's University of Belfast), Belfast. (Belfast
Byzantine Texts and Translations no.1)

370
 Danielou, J . (1956) The Bible and the Liturgy, University of Notre Dame -
Liturgical Studies, English Edition (University of Notre Dame Press), Notre
Dame, IN.

Darrouzes, J . (1987) "Le patriarche Methode contre les iconoclastes et les

studites", Revue des etudes byzantines, vol. 45, pp. 15 - 57.

Doens, I. and Hannick, C . (1973) "Das periorismos-dekret des Patriarchen

Methodios I. Gegen die studiten Naukratios und Athanasios", Jahrbuch der
Osterreichischen Byzantinistik (JOB), band 22, pp. 93 - 102.

Duffy, J . and Parker, J . (1979) The Synodikon Vetus - text, translation and
notes, Corpus fontium historiae byzantinae, Washington, D.C. (Dumbarton
Oaks Texts no. v.).

Dumont, D. and Smith, R. (1995) T.L.G. - C. D. Rom, Pacific Palisades CA.

Dvornik, F. (1948) The Photian Schism, History and Legend (Cambridge

University Press), Cambridge, UK.

Dvornik, F. (1953) "Patriarch Photius and Iconoclasm", DOP, vol. 7, pp. 69

ff.

Euodios Monachos (c. 843), (1989) "Hoi Sarantaduo Martyres tou

Amoriou", in Hagiologiaki Bibliotheki, vol. II (ed.) S . Euthymiades (Nea
Smyrne) pp. 18 - 30.

Eusebius (c. 4th century) The History of the Church from Christ to
Constantine, 1965, trans. G. A. Williamson (Dorset Press - 1984), New York
(Dorset Classic Series).

Fatouros, G. (ed.) (1991) Theodori Studitae Epistulae in two vols. (Walter

De Gruyter), Berlin and New York.

Featherstone, J . (1984) The Refutation of the Council of 815 by

Nicephorus, PhD dissertation, Harvard.

Florovsky, G. (1974) Christianity and Culture, The Collected Works of Fr.

Georges Florovsky (Norland Publishing Co.), Belmont, MA.

Follieri, H. (1960) Initia Hymnorum Ecclesiae Graecae (Biblioteca

Apostolica Vaticana), Citta del Vatticano, (Studi e Testi - 211).

Fortescue, A. (ed.) (1911) The Catholic Encyclopedia.

Frazee, C . (1981) "Theodore of Studius and Ninth Century Monasticism in

Constantinople", Studia Monastica, vol. 28, pp. 27 - 58.

371
 Frolow, A. (1963) "Le Christ de la Chalce", Byzantion, vol. xxxiii., pp. 107 -
120.

Geanakoplos, D. J . (1984) Byzantium - Church, Society, and Civilization

Seen through Contemporary Eyes (University of Chicago Press), Chicago.

T E r A E , r. (ed.) (n.d.) Liturgical Books of the Months (MHNAIA TOY

XPONOY), (MIX. ZAAIBETIOY A. E.), Athens.

Gero, S. (n.d.) "Byzantine Iconoclasm and The Failure of Medieval

Reformation," in Image And The Word - Confrontations in Judaism,
Christianity and Islam, vol. 4 (ed.) J . Gutmann (Scholars Press), Missoula,
MT, pp. 49 - 62.

Gero, S. (1973) Byzantine Iconoclasm during the Reign of Leo III - with
particular attention to the Oriental Sources (Secretariat du Corpus S C O ) ,
Louvain (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, vol. 346, Subsidia,
tomus 41).

Gero, S. (1977) Byzantine Iconoclasm During the Reign of Constantine V -

with particular attention to Oriental Sources (Secretariat du Corpus S C O ) ,
Louvain (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, vol. 384, Subsidia
tomus 52).

Gero, S. (1981) "The True Image of Christ: Eusebius' Letter to Constantia

Reconsidered", Journal of Theological Studies n.s., vol. 32 no. 2, pp. 460 -
470.

Giakalis, A. (1994) Images of the Divine The Theology of Icons at the

Seventh Ecumenical Council (E.J. Brill), Leiden/New York/Koln (Studies in the
History of Christian Thought).

Goar, J . (ed.) (1960) (1730) Euchologion Sive Rituale Graecorum,

(Unveranderter Abrdruck), Venedig, Austria.

Gouillard, J . (1961) "Deux Figures Mai Connues Du Second Iconoclasme",

Byzantion, vol. XXXI, pp. 371 - 401.

Gouillard, J . (1967) "Le Synodikon d'Orthodoxie: edition et commentaire",

Travaux et Memoires, vol. 2, pp. 1 - 316.

Gouillard, J . (1968) "Aux Origines de I'lconoclasme: Le Temoignage de

Gregoire II", Travaux et Memoires - Centre de Reserche D'Histoire et
Civilisation Byzantines, vol. 3, pp. 243 - 307.

Gouillard, J . (1981) "Une Oeuvre Inedite Du Patriarche Methode: La Vie

D'Euthyme De Sardes," in La Vie Religieuse A Byzance = Also to be found in
BZ, vol. 53, (1960) (Variorum Reprints), London, pp. 36 - 46.

372
 Gouillard, J . (1987) "La Vie D'Euthyme De Sardes (+831) une oeuvre du
patriarche Methode", Travaux et Memoires, vol.10, pp: 1 - 101.

Grabar, A. (1984) L'lconoclasme Byzantin (Flammarion Press), Paris.

Grierson, P. (1962) "The Tombs and Obits of the Byzantine Emperors."

DOP, vol. 16, pp. 1 - 63.

Grumel, V. and Darrouzes, J . (eds.) (1989) Les Regestes Des Actes Du

Patriarcat De Constantinople (715 - 1206), (Institut Francais D'Etudes
Byzantines), Paris.

Hamilton, J . and Hamilton, B. (1998) Christian Dualist Heresies in the

Byzantine World, trans, of Old Slavonic Texts - Y. Stoyanov (Manchester
University Press), Manchester & New York (Manchester Medieval Sources
Series).

Hapgood, I. F. (ed.) (1965) Service Book of the Holy Orthodox Catholic

Apostolic Church (Syrian Antiochian Archdiocese), New York.

Hatlie, P. (1996) "The Politics of Salvation: Theodore of Stoudios on

Martyrdom (Martyrion) and Speaking Out (Parrhesia)", DOP, vol. 50, pp. 263 -
287.

Henry, P. (1969) "The Moechian Controversy and the Constantinopolitan

Synod of January ad. 809." Journal of Theological Studies n. s., vol. xx, pp.
459 - 522.

Henry, P. (1974) "Initial Eastern Assessments of the Seventh Oecumenical

Council", Journal of Theological Studies n.s., vol. xxv, pp. 75 - 92.

Henry, P. (1977) "Images of the Church in the Second Nicene Council and
in the Libri Carolini," In Law Church and Society, Essays in Honor of Stephen
Kuttner, (eds.) K. Penninglos and R. Somerville (University of Pennsylvania
Press), Philadelphia, PA, pp. 237 - 252.

Hussey, J . M. (1990) The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire

(Clarendon Press), Oxford, UK.

Ignatios the Deacon (1998) The Life of Patriarch Nicephoros I of

Constantinople in Byzantine Defenders of Images - Eight Saints' Lives in
English translation, trans. E. A. Fisher (Dumbarton Oaks Library and
Collection), Washington, D.C.

Ignatios the Deacon (1998) The Life of Patriarch Tarasios - (BHG 1698),
Introduction Text Translation and Commentary - S . Efthymiadis (Ashgate Lmt.
in the Variorum Series), Hampshire, UK (Birmingham Byzantine and Ottoman
Monographs).

373
 James, L. (ed.) (1999) Desire and Denial in Byzantium - Papers from the
Thirty-first Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies University of Sussex,
Brighton, March 7997(Ashgate/Variorum), Aldershot UK.

Janin, R. (1975) Les eglises et les monasteres des grands centres

Byzantins (Institut Francais d' etudes Byzantines), Paris.

Kaegi Jr., W. E . (1966) "The Byzantine Armies and Iconoclasm",

Byzantinoslavica, vol./ part 27, pp. 48 - 70.

Karlin - Hayter, P. (1975) "Gregory of Syracuse, Ignatios and Photios," in

Iconoclasm - Papers given at the Ninth Spring Symposium of Byzantine
Studies, eds. A. Bryer and J . Herrin (Centre for Byzantine Studies - University
of Birmingham), Birmingham, UK, pp. 141 - 145.

Kazhdan, A. P. (ed.) (1991) The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium (Oxford

University Press), New York and Oxford.

Kitzinger, E. (1954) "The Cult of Images in the Age before Iconoclasm",

DOP, vol. 8, pp. 83 - 150.

Krausmuller, D. (1999) "Divine Sex: Patriarch Methodios' concept on

virginity," in Desire and Denial in Byzantium - Papers from the Thirty-first
Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies University of Sussex, Brighton,
March 1997, vol.6, ed. L. James (Ashgate/Variorum), Aldershot, UK pp. 57 -
67.

Kurtz, E. (1902) "Review of B. Melioranskij's "Georgios von Kypros...",

Byzantinische Zeitschrift, vol. xi, pp. 538 - 543.

Ladner, G. B. (1953) "The Concept of Image in the Greek Fathers and the
Byzantine Iconoclastic Controversy", DOP, vol. 7, pp.1 - 34.

Lampe, G. W. H. (ed.) (1961) A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Clarendon Press)

Oxford.

Latysev, B. (ed.) (1918) "Methodii, patriarchae Constantinopolitani, Vita S.

Theophanis confessoris e codice Mosquensi no. 159 edidit," Memoires de
I'Academie des Sciences de Russie series viii, tomos xiii: pt. iv (Classe Hist. -
Phil.), Petrograd, pp. i + 120.

Lesmueller-Werner, A. et Thurn, l.(ed.) (1978) losephi Genesii -Regum Libri

Quattuo, (Walter de Gruyter et Socios), Berolini et Novi Eboraci.

Louth, A. (1994) Denys L'Areopagite et sa Posterite en Orient et en

Occident, vol. 151, ed. Y. de Andia (Institut d'Etudes Augustiniennes, Paris),
pp. 329 - 339.

374
 Lowden, J . (1997) Early Christian and Byzantine Art (Phaidon Press),
London.

Maguire, H. (ed.) (1997) Byzantine Court Culture from 829 - 1204

(Dumbarton Oaks Research Library), Washington, D.C.

Mango, C . (1959) The Brazen House - A Study of the Vestibule of

Constantinople, Arkeaologisk-kunsthistoriske Meddelelser (i kommission hos
Ejnar Munksgaard), Copenhagan.

Mango, C . (1967) "When was Michael III Born?" OOP, vol. 21, pp. 253 -
259.

Mango, C . (1975a) "Historical Introduction to Iconoclasm," In Iconoclasm -

Papers given at the Ninth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, eds. A.
Bryer and J . Herrin (University of Birmingham Press), Birmingham, UK, pp. 1
- 6.

Mango, C . (1975b) "Liquidation of Iconoclasm and Patriarch Photios," in

Iconoclasm -Papers given at the Ninth Spring Symposium of Byzantine
Studies on Iconoclasm, eds. A. Bryer and J . Herrin (Centre for Byzantine
Studies - University of Birmingham), Birmingham, UK, pp. 1 3 3 - 1 4 1 .

Mango, C. (1983) "The Two Lives loannikos And The Bulgarians", Okeanos
(Harvard Ukrainian Studies), vol./part 7, pp. 393 - 404.

Mango, C. (1990) Nikephoros of Constantinople, Short History, edited,

trans, and commentary by C.Mango, Washington, D.C. (Corpus Fontium
Historiae Byzantinae)

Mansi, J . D. (ed.) (1759 - 1798) Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova et Amplissima

Collectio, Florence and Vienna.

Mantzaridis, G. (1995) Time and Man, trans. J . Vulliamy (St. Tikhon's

Seminary Press), South Canaan, Pa.

Marin, E . (1897) Les moines de Constantinople depuis la foundation de la

ville jusqu a la mort de Photius (330 - 898), (Leoffre), Paris.

Marshall, A. (ed.) (1970) The R.S.V. Interlinear Greek - English New

Testament (Zondervan), Grand Rapids Ml.

May, H. and Metzger, B. (eds.) (1973) The New Oxford Annotated Bible
with the Apocrypha (Oxford University Press), New York.

McGuckin, J . A. (1993) "The Theology of Images and Legitimation of Power

in Eighth Century Byzantium", St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly, vol. 37,
pp. 39 - 58.

375
 Methodios of Constantinople (edited 1857-1866) "Homily on The Cross and
the Passion of Christ (excerpts)," in P G , vol. xviii, ed. J . - P. Migne, Paris,
(cols.) 3 9 7 - 4 0 1 .

Methodios of Constantinople (843) Canon for The Synodikon of Orthodoxy,

trans. Archimandrite Ephrem Lash, February 2001,
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/ephrem.

Methodios of Constantinople (843) EII THN EIKONA THZXAAKHZ, trans.

Archimandrite Ephrem Lash, February 2001,
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/ephrem.

Methodios of Constantinople (843) Synodikon of Orthodoxy, trans.

Archimandrite Ephrem Lash, February 2001,
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/ephrem.

Methodios of Constantinople (c. 843) EK0EIIITJEPITQN AriflN

EIKONC1N, in Vat. Gre. 1753 [225r - 230v], Roma, pp. 1 - 1 2 .

Methodios of Constantinople (c. 815 - 821) "ZXOAIA A I I E P EIZ TO

MAPTYPION T H E AITAZ MAPINHX," in Festschriftzur funften Sacularfeier der
Carl-Ruprechts Universitat zu Heidlelberg, ed. Usener, 1886 (Universitats-
Buchdruckerei von Carl Georgi), Bonn, pp. 48 - 53.

Methodios of Constantinople (n.d.) Canon of Supplication and Repentance

to the Theotokos, in Catalogue of the National Library of Greece number 728,
Athens, pp. 133 ff.

Methodios of Constantinople (n.d.) "ETKfiMION EIX TON ATION

NIKOAAON TON EN MYPOIZ THE A Y K I A I , " in Hagios Nikolaos der Heilige
Nikolaos in der Griechischen Kirche, vol. I, ed. G . Anrich,1913 (B. G.
Teubner), Leipzig - Berlin, pp. 153 - 182.

Methodios of Constantinople (n.d.) "Methodii ad Theodorum in vitam at

reliquitas Nicolai Myrensis," in Hagios Nikolaos der Heilige Nikolaos in der
Griechischen Kirche, vol. I, ed. G. Anrich, 1913 (B. G. Teubner), Leipzig -
Berlin pp. 140 - 150.

Methodios of Constantinople (n.d.) "Canon In Sanctam Luciam," in Analecta

Hymnica Graecae - Codibus erute Italiae Inferioris, vol. iv - Canones
Decembris, ed. A. Kominis, 1976 (Instituto di Studi Bizantini e Neoellenici
Universita di Roma), Roma, pp. 279 - 287 for 13 Dec.

Methodios of Constantinople (n.d.) Penitential Canon, in Catalogo de los

griegos de la Real Biblioteca de El Escorial, Madrid, pp. 333 ff.

Meyendorff, J . (1974) St. Gregory Palamas and Orthodox Spirituality, trans.

A. Fiske (St. Vladimir's Seminary Press), Crestwood, NY.

376
 Meyendorff, J . (1987) Christ in Eastern Christian Thought (Le Christ dans la
theoloie byzantine.), 2nd Edition, trans. J . Meyendorff (St. Vladimir's
Seminary Press), Crestwood, NY.

Meyendorff, J . (ed.) (1992) The Primacy of Peter - Essays in Ecclesiology

and the Early Church (St. Vladimir's Seminary Press), Crestwood NY.

Migne, J . - P. (ed.) (1844 - 1855) Patrologiae Cursus Completus: Series

Latina, Paris.

Migne, J . - P. (ed.) (1857-1866) Patrologiae Cursus Completus: Series

Graeca, Paris.

Mioni, E. (1950) "L'Encomio di S. Agata di Methodio Patriarca di

Constantinople, Analecta Bollandiana, tomos Ixviii, pp. 58 - 93.

Mitsides, A. (1989) H TJAPOYIIA THEEKKAHEIALKYTIPOYEIZ, TON

ArQNA YFJEP TQN EIKONQN - NOY0EZIA rEPONTOITIEP1TQNAHQN
EIKONQN(University of Athens), Leukosia.

Morris, R. (1995) Monks and Laymen in Byzantium 843 -1118 (Cambridge

University Press), Cambridge UK.

Neufeldt, V. (ed.) (1989) Webster's New World Dictionary of American

English (Webster's New World), Cleveland / New York.

O'Connell, P. (1972) The Ecclesiology of St. Nicephorus I (758-828)

Patriarch of Constantinople - Pentarchy and Primacy (Pontificii Institutum
Studiorum Orientalium), Rome (Orientalia Christiana Analecta no. 194).

Ostrogorsky, G. (1969) History of the Byzantine State, Revised Edition,

trans. J . Hussey (Rutgers University Press), New Brunswick, NJ.

Ouspensky, L. and Lossky, V. (1989) The Meaning of Icons, Revised

Edition, trans. G . E . H . Palmer and E. Kadloubovsky (St. Vladimir's Seminary),
Crestwood, NY.

Papadakis, A. (1970) "An Unpublished Life of Euthymius of Sardis:

Bodleianus Laudianus Graecus 69", Traditio, tomos xxvi, pp. 63 - 89.

Papadeas, G . (ed.) (1971) Greek Orthodox Holy Week and Easter Services
in Greek/English, New York NY.

Papadopoulos-Kerameus, A. (ed.) (1891) Twelve Chapters of Nikephoros of

Constantinople, in Analekta lerosolymitikes Stachyologias, pp. 454 - 460.

Parenti, S . and Velkovska, E. (eds.) (1995) L'Eucologio Barberini Gr. 336

[ff. 1 - 263] (C. L. V. - Edizioni Liturgiche), Roma.

377
 Pargoire, J . (1903) "Saint Methode de Constantinople avant 821", Echos a"
Orient, vol. 6, pp. 126 - 131.

Pargoire, J . (1903) "Saint Methode et la persecution", Echos a" Orient, vol.

6, pp. 183 - 191.

Payne, R. (1957) The Holy Fire - The Story of the Fathers of the Eastern
Church (Harper & Brothers Publishers), New York.

Pelikan, J . (1977) The Christian Tradition - in 3 volumes / vol.2 - A History

of the Development of Doctrine (University of Chicago Press),
Chicago/London.

Percival, H. R. (ed.) (1956) A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene

Fathers of the Christian Church The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the
Undivided Church (Eerdmans Publishing), Oxford/New York/Grand Rapids.

Peter the Monk (1998) "Life of St. loannikios," in Byzantine Defenders of

Images - Eight Saint's Lives in Translation, ed. A. - M. Talbot, trans. D. F.
Sullivan (Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection), Washington,
D.C., pp. 243 - 353.

Pitra, J . B. (1868) " S . Methodius CP," in luris Ecclesiastici Graecorum

Historia et Monumenta, tomos. ii (S. Congregationis De Propaganda Fide),
Roma, pp. 351 - 365.

Pseudo - Dionysius the Areopagite (1987) Pseudo - Dionysius - The

Complete Works, trans. C . Luibheid (The Paulist Press), New York/Mahwah
(The Classics of Western Spirituality).

Quasten, J . (1986) Patrology - in IV volumes (Christian Classics Inc.),

Westminster MD.

Regel, W. (ed.) (1891) De Theophili imperatoris absolutione - in Analecta

Byzantino - Russica (Eggers & S. I. Glasunof), Petrograd.

Regel, W. (ed.) (1891) Vita Theodorae imperatricis - in Analecta Byzantino-

Russica (Eggers & S. I. Glasunof), Petrograd.

Resnick, I. M. (1985) "Idols and Images: Early definitions and

controversies", Sobornost, eds. S. Hackel, et al., vol. 7, pp. 35 - 49.

Ringrose, K. M. (1979) "Monks and Society in Iconoclastic Byzantium",

Byzantine Studies - special edition essays offered in Honour of Peter
Charanis, vol. 6, pp. 130 - 151.

Sahas, D. J . (1988) Icons and Logos, Sources in Eighth Century

Iconoclasm, trans. D. J . Sahas (University of Toronto Press), Toronto
/Buffalo/ London (Toronto Medieval Texts and Translations no. 4).

378
 Schiro, J . (ed.) (1972) Analecta Hymnica Graeca -lunnii (Instituto di Studi
Bizanti e Neoellinici - Universita di Roma), Roma.

Schiro, J . and Kominis, A. (eds.) (1972) Canones vol. Ill - Novembris,

Canon of St loannikios by Methodios of Constantinople (Instituto di Studi
Bizantini e Neoellenici - Universita di Roma), Roma.

Sendler, E. (1981) The Icon: Image of the Invisible (L'lcone: Image de

/'invisible), English trans. - S. Bigham (1988) (Editions Desclee De Brouver -
Oakwood Publications), Paris.

Sevcenko, I. (1975) "Hagiography of the Iconoclastic Period," in Iconoclasm

- Papers given at the Ninth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, eds. A.
Bryer and J . Herrin (Centre for Byzantine Studies - University of Birmingham),
Birmingham, UK, pp. 113 - 132.

Sister Charles Mary Murray (1977) "Art and the Early Church", J.T.S. - n.s.,
vol. 28, pp. 303 - 345.

St. Basil the Great (1980) On the Holy Spirit, trans. D. Anderson (St
Vladimir's Seminary Press), Crestwood NY.

St. Germanos of Constantinople (1984) On the Divine Liturgy, trans. P.

Meyendorff (St. Vladimir's Seminary Press), Crestwood, NY.

St. Irenaeus of Lyons (1997) On the Apostolic Preaching, trans, and intro.
J . Behr (St. Vladimir's Seminary Press), Crestwood, NY.

St. John Chrysostomos (1977) Six Books On Holy Priesthood, trans. G.

Neville (St. Vladimir's Seminary Press), Crestwood, NY.

St. John Maximovitch (1977) "The Word Anathema and its Meaning",
Orthodox Life, vol. 2, p. 18.

St. John of Damascus. (1980) On Images, Three Apologies Against Those

Who Attack the Divine Images, trans. D. Anderson (St. Vladimir's Seminary
Press), Crestwood, NY.

St. Theodore the Studite (1981) On Holy Icons, trans. C . P. Roth (St.
Vladimir's Seminary Press), Crestwood, NY.

Sternbach, L. and Cracoviae, D. (1898) "Methodii patriarchae et Ignatii

patriarchae carmina inedita", EOS, tomos iv, pp. 150 ff.

Talbot, A. - M. (ed.) (1998) Byzantine Defenders of Images - Eight Saints in

English Translation (Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection),
Washington.

379
 Theophanes Presbyteros (1978), (c. 844) "Mnemeia Hagiologica nyn Proton
Ekdidomena - Narratio de translatione S Nicephori," in Subsidia Byzantina,
vol. 8, eds. 0. B. Icoavvri - and J . Irmscher et al. (Zenralantiquariat), Leipzig,
pp. 115 - 128.

Theophanes the Confessor (1997) The Chronicle of Theophanes

Confessor, trans. C . Mango, R. Scott and G. Greatrex (Clarendon Press),
Oxford.

Theosterictos. (n.d.) "Vita S. Nicetae the Confessor," in Acta Sanctorum

Aprilis, pp. xxiv - xxvii.

Thurn, I. (ed.) (1973) loannis Scylitzae Synopsis Historiarum (Walter de

Gruyter et Socios), Berolini et Novi Eboraci.

Travis, J . (1984) In Defense of the Faith - the Theology of Patriarch

Nikephoros of Constantinople (Hellenic College Press), Brookline, MA.

Treadgold, W. (1979) "The Chronological Accuracy of the Chronicle of

Symeon the Logothete for the Years 813 - 845", DOP, vol. 33, pp. 159 - 197.

Treadgold, W. (1988) The Byzantine Revival (780 - 842) (Stanford

University Press), Stanford, CA.

Treadgold, W. (1997) A History of the Byzantine State and Society

(Stanford University Press), Stanford, CA.

Turner, D. (1990) "The Origins and Accession of Leo V (813-820)", JOB,

vol. 40, pp. 172-203.

v. Dobschtuz, E . (1909) "Methodios und die Studiten", Byzantinische

Zeitschrift, vol. 18, pp. 41 - 105.

van de Vorst, C . (1913) "La translation de S . Theodore Studite et de S.

Joseph de Thessalonique," Analecta Bollandiana, vol. xxxii, pp. 27 - 62.

Walter, C . (1988) "The Icon and Image of Christ: The Second Council of
Nicaea and Byzantine Tradition", Sobornost, eds. S . Hackel et al., vol. 10, pp.
23 - 33.

Wellesz, E. (1949) A History of Byzantine Music and Hymnography

(Clarendon Press), Oxford.

Westerbrink, J . C . (1937) Passio S. Dionysii Areopagitae - Rustici et

Eleutherii (C. Haasbeek), Alphen.

White, D. S. (1981) Patriarch Photios of Constantinople - His Life, Scholarly

Contributions and Correspondence with a translation of Fifty - two of his
Letters (Holy Cross Orthodox Press), Brookline, MA (Archbishop lakovos
Library of Ecclesiastical and Historical Sources no. 5.).

380
 Whittow, M. (1996) The Making of Byzantium, 600-1025 [a.k.a. The Making
of Orthodox Byzantium] (University of California Press), Berkeley/Los
Angeles, CA.

Zonaras, I. (1868) "Annales - J . Zonarae - Epitome historiarum in 6 vols.",

vol. 1-2, in P G , vol. cxxxiv, ed. J . - P. Migne, Paris.

381